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

The Best Served Stadium In The UK?

By Keep Everton In Our City :  30/01/2008 :  Comments (77) :
Following our recent appraisal of Everton?s precarious position in relation to the Tesco planning application and its current non-compliance with existing planning legislation KEIOC has now turned its attention to the woefully inadequate Transport Plan which forms part of the same Tesco Planning Application. A team, that includes members of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, has assessed this transport plan.

Evertonians everywhere will remember the tantalising statements emanating from the club and interested parties during the ballot process; amongst other things we were told that the Kirkby Project was the ?Deal of the Century? and that ?People will be happy with the Matchday Experience?

We?d advise all match going Evertonians to read this comprehensive article with an open mind, the assumptions have been cast aside in favour of hard facts and data supplied from the actual planning application. Read how Dave and Alan, loyal lifelong Evertonians, have had their ?Matchday Experience? enhanced by the move to Kirkby, digest the data taken from the transport consultants own documentation, put yourself in Dave and Andy?s shoes and then ask yourself the question ?was I told the truth about the Kirkby Project??

Those of you who feel that this move is wrong for Everton come and join KEIOC, offer your support via our website and treat statements such as ?we expect planning permission to be granted within three months, with a spade in the ground June or July 2008? with the same contempt that is being shown to you.

This stadium will be the best served transportation wise of any stadium in the north west if not the UK. There will be a new rail link at Kirkby and a new station is being planned right now and built. It is right on the M57 motorway and we think Mersey Tram might come into the picture.

Keith Wyness, 09 August 2007

Sweeping claims from the CEO of Everton Football Club on the eve of the ballot to ascertain if the Evertonians deemed eligible by the board, were in favour of relocating the first club in Liverpool, out of the city of its birth and into a small town in Knowsley. Taking the above quote and adding it to the almost endless list of never to be forgotten claims made by Keith Wyness throughout the summer, it is a wonder that 41% of eligible Evertonians voted “NO” to the Tesco Proposal.

Maybe those 41%, despite the heady claims of the CEO, were not willing to vote “YES” to Kirkby, without being in possession  of the full facts.

In July 2007, Keith Wyness said:

“Fans will be asked to review the plans in detail before they vote in the ballot in the first week of August with the results due later that month. They will be shown transportation plans, to reassure them that Kirkby is the right location.”

Mr Wyness added: “We are trying to be as inclusive and open as possible. The fans are a very important part of the process.”

That was a promise the CEO of Everton football Club did not follow through on. Only now, six months later, can Evertonians view the transportation plans that Keith Wyness promised we would all see in detail before the vote commenced.

By now, all Evertonians will be aware that the Tesco Planning Application has been submitted to Knowsley Council. The application is made up of a huge amount of documents; the Transport Assessment (TA) for the Stadium alone, runs to 214 pages. The majority of documents are dated as being completed (including all the EFC related ones) in November 2007. Just two months after the ballot was held. Tesco, Knowsley and Everton have been working on this proposal getting on for two years now. They have been (and remain) legally bound by an exclusivity agreement since December 06.

Whether you voted “YES,” or “NO,” there should now be no doubt that Keith Wyness was in possession of the facts and details and knew full well what the transport strategy would be, well in advance of the ballot.

Given the outcome he craved, and the revealing of the frankly astonishing claims within the Transport Assessment (TA), nobody could blame him for not making public the details of "Destination Kirkby" and the Transport Strategy to Evertonians before the vote. If Keith Wyness had revealed just one fact regarding the transport strategy he had at hand before the vote, as stated on the 24th of January in the Liverpool Echo, under the headline;

“Everton promise to pay for Kirkby parking”

would the outcome of the vote have been the same? If the quotes from Everton and Tesco within the recent Echo article, were included in the ballot brochure, would the board have gotten their “mandate” to relocate Everton Football Club to Kirkby?

You be the judge;

Liverpool Echo, 24 January, 2008;

"Under the plan, supporters would be banned from parking along residential streets around the new stadium. They would also be barred from town centre shoppers’ car parks to prevent the area becoming gridlocked on match days.....Strict penalties for football fans flouting the rules such as fines, clamping and towing cars away."

“This would be one of the most comprehensive and stringently policed controlled parking areas connected to a football club in the entire country."

Did anybody vote “YES” to the above?

The controlled parking (CPZ) issue covered in the above mentioned Echo article is one of many real logistical and transportation issues that every Evertonian would be facing if this Tesco proposal is allowed to go ahead.

This article will focus on the other numerous facts, figures and modes of transport that would “enable” Evertonians to travel to Kirkby, as set out in the Transport Strategy for the proposed ‘Kirkby Stadium,’ within the Tesco Planning Application.

All numbered quotes are taken directly from the Transport Assessment Document 9.1, Volume 3, Stadium, November 2007.”

Information regarding two Everton season ticket holders currently traveling to and from Goodison Park using public transport from Aigburth and Crosby respectively, will be used to highlight and give some perspective, not only to the significant increase in journey time but also the real inconvenience that will be endured by all but a few supporters on a match day at the proposed ‘Kirkby Stadium.’

TRAINS

8.2 The closest station to the stadium is Kirkby, which is approximately 900m from the north west entrance to the site.

8.4 The catchment area for the rail network is shown in Figure 8.1 and presents those stations that are within a 45 minute journey time (station to station) of Kirkby Station. It is assumed that spectators would be willing to spend an hour travelling to Kirkby Station on a train, of which up to 15 minutes has been allowed for walking to the origin station. Once spectators have arrived at Kirkby Station it is approximately a 10 minute walk to the stadium.

8.7 Those stations which have more than 100 STHs within a 15 minute walk and a 45 minute train journey are presented below in Table 8.1.

Name of Station/Number of Season Ticket Holders (STH)

Aigburth 149
Aintree 168
Aughton Park 111
Birkenhead North 110
Blundellsands And Crosby 306
Bootle New Strand 169
Cressington 155
Fazakerley 229
Formby 181
Kirkdale 516
Maghull 241
Old Roan 193
Orrell Park 307
Rice Lane 116
Seaforth And Litherland 243
Walton 187
Waterloo 239

TOTAL 3,620

Kirkby to Liverpool Central is given as "16-30 minutes." Although you should note these are the journey times taken from Merseyrail as they are today. Not when a predicted 4000 plus extra commuters will be using the Merseyrail Northern Line on a matchday/night. Added to those journey times is a "15 minute walk", from the home to the "origin station."

Steer Davies Gleave (SDG) on behalf of Tesco Stores Limited "assume" that 4000 plus "spectators would be willing to embark on;"

A 15 minute walk from their homes to their origin station...........

Spend up to an hour traveling to Kirkby Station on a train.......

Walk approximately 10-15 minutes to the Stadium from Kirkby Station.

That equates to supporters taking the train from 25 stations, that include all stations in South Liverpool, Sefton, and The Wirral, spending up to a predicted 1.5 hours pre-match journey time, just getting to ‘Kirkby Stadium.’

‘Dave’ is an Evertonian season ticket holder who has on a regular basis, for the past 23 years, traveled to home games at Goodison Park by train from his home in Aigburth. Including the walk to Aigburth station, 1 change and the 15 minute walk from Kirkdale Station to Goodison Park, ‘Dave’ takes a ‘door to turnstyle’  journey time of approximately 55 minutes.

‘Dave’s’ pre-match journey time to the proposed ‘Kirkby Stadium’ would be, according to the planning strategy for ‘Kirkby Stadium,’ extended by up to 35 minutes. This no doubt, will be seen and argued by some, apparently including the Everton FC board members as being an acceptable ‘inconvenience.’

The reality is, that people like ‘Dave’ may well put up with an extra half hour on their  pre-match train journey time. The stark reality will be what he and the 4000 other Evertonians will be facing on their post-match train journey back home;

8.20 It can be seen in Table 8.5 that there is sufficient capacity in the peak pre- match hour to accommodate the expected matchday demand before a Saturday match of 1,564 spectators. However, in the peak post-match hour there is insufficient capacity to accommodate the expected matchday demand of 3,797 spectators.

8.23 In order to meet the matchday demand it is proposed, after consultation with
Merseytravel, to introduce 6 carriage trains on Saturdays and weeknight matchdays.

8.24 By introducing 6 carriage trains on matchdays the available capacity will double from 480 spectators per train to 960 spectators per train.

8.45 Three carriage Merseyrail trains currently serve Kirkby Station on the Liverpool line. On the occasion of specific large events, such as the Grand National, Merseytravel use a planning capacity of about 480 passengers when crush loaded. This planning capacity has been used as football matches are deemed to be large events.

SDG have calculated that within 1 hour of the match ending, 4000 Evertonians who want or need to get back to Liverpool, will be "crush loaded" onto 4 trains, 1 every 15 minutes. However, the walk time to the station from the stadium in the TA is given as 10/15 minutes. Meaning (Taking a 15.00 kick off as an example) that the first 1000 supporters will not be able to be "crush loaded" onto a train until at the very least 17.10/17.15. Meanwhile, the other 3000 supporters, will be "organized" into a queue by Merseyside Police in the car park of Kirkby Station and out and onto Kirkby Row;

8.43 It is anticipated that the Merseyside Police will manage the post match queues along Kirkby Row and the safe crossing of spectators from Kirkby Row, across Whitefield Drive to the station car park. It is likely that temporary barriers will be provided to manage the significant queues within the station car park and along the footway on the northern side of Kirkby Row. Directional pedestrian signage will also be installed to assist spectator movement between the station and the new stadium.

This is open air queuing. I don't imagine those 4000 supporters will be too happy in the middle of winter, when it's blowing a gale and raining when one thousand of them are being forced to wait without shelter for at least one hour, only to be "crush loaded" onto a train back to Liverpool. Have SDG taken into account the woman and children and elderly Evertonians who are to be “crush loaded” onto these trains? It seems not. Would any right minded parent be willing to allow their children to be “crushed loaded” onto a train?

The following is a list of Kirkby Station facilities taken from the National Rail Enquiries website;

First Class Lounge; None. Seating Area; None. Waiting Rooms; No Waiting Rooms. Meeting Point; None. Refreshment Facilities; None.  Pay Phone; Yes. ATM Machine; None. Shops; to be confirmed by Station Operator.  Customer Information System; None. Operator Help Point; Yes. Information Kiosk; None. Men's Toilets; None. Women's Toilets; None. Staff Help Available; None

As per the Tesco planning application there will be no significant redevelopment of Kirkby Station.

According to the figures quoted at 8.7 in the TA. These “crush loaded” Evertonians will be looking at a journey time of up to 45 minutes station to station, with up to 15 minutes walk from stadium to station and station to home thereafter.

What those figures do not take into account is the 1000 Evertonians who will have to add on an extra hour to their post-match train journey time due to waiting  in Kirkby Station car park to be “crush loaded” onto the last of the 6 carriage trains in service post-match. Of course, they could add even more time to their journey by waiting even longer for the post-match peak hour to end;

16.55 Match ends;

17.10 First 1000 fans depart - 3000 waiting, exposed to the elements…….. 

17.25 Next 1000 depart – 2000 exposed to the elements........
17.40 Next 1000 depart - 1000 still waiting.........
17.55 Final 1000 get away.

This means that for ‘Dave’ the match-going day could stretch from around 1 pm to 7pm, just to get the train to and from ‘Kirkby Stadium.

According to SDG, ‘Dave’s’ matchday journey will entail;

13.00 Leave home.
13.15 Catch the train.
14.15 Reach Kirkby Station.
14.30 Enter Kirkby Stadium.

Watch the match.

16.55 Match ends.
17.10 Reach the queue for Kirkby Station.
17.55 “Crush Loaded” onto train.
18.55 Reach destination (Aigburth Station).
19.10 Arrive home.

A total of a minimum of around 4 hours journey time by train, for a home match!

Is this the type of matchday experience 59% of Evertonians voted “YES” too? According to Keith Wyness back in August it was;

“I think people will be happy with the matchday experience.”

BUSES

9.3 It is estimated that 18% of Everton spectators will travel to the new stadium by local bus services. This equates to demand of 9,405 bus passengers on any matchdays over a 2-3 hour period.

9.4 Based on empirical evidence at Emirates Stadium, 50% of passengers arrive during the peak pre-match hour and 70% depart during the peak post-match hour. However this has been adjusted as the retention level in Kirkby is unlikely to be as high as at the Emirates Stadium. Therefore, we have assumed that 85% (7,994) of spectators will depart in the hour after the match finishes.
The Transport Assessment looks at how public transport will cope, and what measures will be needed on matchdays. It acknowledges that there is no likelihood of an increase in public transport, since the population of Kirkby is not going to increase significantly. Therefore alternative measures need to be taken.  Note: there is no need to lay on ANY extra transport above the current arrangements for Goodison, which clears within 30 minutes.
There are no plans for further public buses in 2010. Instead, the TA proposes a series of Season Ticket Holder buses to 15 routes throughout Merseyside to cope with the 8,000 Evertonians who due to lack of capacity of the regular service, won’t be able to get to Kirkby on public buses.
9.56 In total it is anticipated that approximately 68 buses would be required to operate the15 new matchday special bus routes.
With buses filled to capacity, that is a total of 100 bus journeys needed within the first hour post match (a total of 117), to go along with the 188 bus journeys required to move people to and from Park & Ride sites (214 journeys in total) (Park & Ride will be covered later).
9.42 Tables 9.3 and 9.4 show the number of seats available in the pre and post match situations. As can be seen, the maximum number of seats available in these periods is around 1,600 in total. Assuming that only 50% of these seats are available to spectators traveling to or from the match implies a capacity shortfall of around 4,000 seats in the hour before the match begins, and 8,000 in the post match hour, which will have to be accommodated within the matchday overlay services described below.

9.43 The level of service will need to be enhanced for the new Everton stadium as the forecast level of bus trips (9,405) can not be met by existing services.

So just to be clear, that is 9405 trips needed – with just 1600 available.
 ‘Alan’ is a Blue from Crosby. He generally travels to Goodison Park by bus and gets going at around 2.05, but can leave it until 2.15 and make it comfortably into his seat before kick-off.  A journey time, including the 15 minute walk from his destination bus stop to Goodison Park, of around 40 minutes.
According to the transport strategy for Kirkby Stadium, by using one of the 68 matchday buses, ‘Alan’s’ pre-match journey time, including the 15 minute walk from the proposed Westvale bus park, will be 1 hour and 15 minutes. An increase in Journey time of around 35 minutes. Again, some would say an increase that would be worth the hassle. Again, it is the details of the post-match journey back to Crosby, that tell the true story of exactly what SDG have in mind for thousands of Evertonians.
The bus station plan which has been chosen has a bay capacity of 25 buses, with a holding area for 25 more. They estimate 6 minutes per bus to load. In the very simplest of terms, if all of the buses were going to the same place, and all could arrive and leave at the same time, there would be 13 changes of buses on the bays. Many of the buses are due to make at least 3 round trips (both P&R and STH) so assuming they could get back in time to get on the bay in the allotted time, it would take 1 hour and 20 minutes to clear the queues.

However, since the buses are going to at least 19 different destinations, to be colour coded for queuing, the reality is that it will take a considerable time longer.

SDG say their plan enables the clearance of 7990 supporters in the first hour post-match, but estimate 87 bus journeys at 80 people per bus = 6960 supporters. A shortfall of 1030 people.

It is clear that the transport strategy plan for 25 bays at the proposed Westvale bus park is flawed. 

The schedule SDG have created, which involves the clearance of 20,842 supporters by bus (both matchday specials and Park & Ride shuttle buses) from the proposed Westvale bus park, requires 36 bays and not 25. Even if every single bus got on the bay, loaded, and departed within the allotted 6 minutes loading time (assuming the bus was back and waiting for the empty bay) there would be over 5000 people of the initial 85% still waiting after one hour, plus the 1030 shortfall, plus the other 15%, who are predicted to arrive at the bus park after the initial post-match “peak hour.”

This, by SDG’s own calculations means that there will be a requirement to move 9987 Evertonians by bus, in the second hour pre-match.

The layout of the bus station indicates individual queuing at each bay with the TA calling for colour coding (Blue, Green and Yellow) of bus routes to help funneling of supporters. There is however, no holding area in the proposed Westvale bus park for the 20,000 plus supporters who would be using it post-match. It appears, similar to the proposed strategy at Kirkby Station, in that supporters would be queuing on the opposite side of the bus park on Valley Road, again open to the elements. 

The 20,000 plus supporters that would form a queue behind ‘removable pedestrian fencing,’ on Valley Road in order to be ‘funneled’ across to the bays in Westvale bus park, seemingly would then have to cross at the same junction used by the shuttle buses and matchday special buses.

In the first hour, post-match, the bus flow is estimated to be 87 ‘Spectator Buses’, 188 Park & Ride shuttle buses and 30 Coaches; a total of 305 bus journeys.  Of those, 100 would be expected to turn left from Whitefield Drive onto Valley Road, and 205 would turn right, towards Junction 6.

As mentioned, a major complication is that the crossing point for Westvale bus park for the 20,000 plus spectators who will be moved during the first hour, is also at the junction of Whitefield Drive and Valley Road.

In the Transport Assessment, Document 9, Volume 7, SDG state crowd flow on level ground as 82 people, per metre width, per minute. From the drawing of the Westvale bus park, it appears the crossing point is approximately 12 metres wide, giving a flow of 82 x 12 per minute = 984 people crossing the road per minute. This means the estimated 20,842 bus users will take over 21 minutes to cross Valley Road.

There is also the need to hold buses leaving the Bus Park to enable buses returning to the park to cross the junction, allow local traffic to progress along Valley Road, and allow cars leaving the Park and Walk Multi-storey and stadium car parks to get to junction 6.

This would leave approx 20 minutes per hour for buses to cross the junction, although the left turning buses would be able to turn at certain times whilst the right turning buses were held up.

Looking only at the right turns, there would be 205 buses turning in 20 minutes, a rate of 1 bus every 6 seconds – possible, but highly unlikely. However, a further complication is that the section of road between the exit from the bus park and the junction is long enough for only 6 buses. If the junction flow stopped for just 1 minute  30 seconds to let spectators cross and allow other traffic flow on Valley Road, there would be 15 buses backed up, resulting in inevitable congestion within the bus park.

The crowd flow document also outlines the following situation for bus park users;

Routes A & E

Route Description

3.24 The South Western Exit Route (Routes A & E) provides access to the coach park and bus park to the south of the stadium. The route to the bus park will require spectators to walk around the coach park and across a 10m wide footbridge. Once onto the public highway, spectators will need to cross Valley Road then proceed to the bus park which is accessed from Whitefield Drive.

Spectator Management Issues

3.25 Approximately 72% of the stadium population will use the southern exit route, exiting the podium via the southern stairs. Due to the large demand along this route an egress strategy has been developed in order to ensure that excess crowding does not occur further along the route which could result in an uncomfortable and / or unsafe environment for the spectators.

3.26 The strategy is based on creating two queuing reservoirs along the route, the first located on the podium, prior to reaching the southern exit stairs, and the second to the south of the coach park, again prior to the exit stairs. The aim of this strategy is to ensure that there is no queuing on either of the stairs, and that flows along the 10 metre footpath that leads towards the bus park result in the minimum possible queuing.

3.27 Spectators will exit the stadium podium and travel towards the coach park down a set of stairs with a combined width of 40 metres. A maximum queue of 5,900 people will form on the podium, although with queue times being less than 3 minutes. Spectators will then flow around, to the stairs located to the south of the Coach Park.

3.28 The coach park will provide a total capacity of 1,680 people / minute (provided south of the coach park will have a width of 10 metres, which allows a flow of 660 persons / minute. Since the remainder of the route is of 10 metres width, the proposed bridge width will focus the queue at the head of the stairs, where it can be safely accommodated.

3.29 These measures will result in a spectator flow which matches the capacity of the route towards the bus park, hence allowing free unimpeded flow once the stairs have been traversed. The proposed bridge width will result in a queuing in the southern part of the coach park. A maximum queue of approximately 8,900 people can be expected at this location, with a maximum queuing time of approximately 13 minutes.

3.30 It must be noted that during the operation of the stadium, a proportion of spectators will be able to access the bus park via the North Western Exit Route (Route B) stairs, by turning south on Tithe Barn Lane. This will result in the removal of demand on the southern podium stairs and on the stairs located to the south of the coach park. The existing analysis has assumed that no spectators will use this route, hence assessing a ‘worst case’ scenario for Routes A & E.

 

So, in order to get to the bus station, spectators face a queue of at least  3 minutes on the podium, and a further 13 minutes waiting to cross the footbridge. This will get them onto Valley Road, where they will then have to wait to get access to the bus station.

This has two consequences: The first buses are unlikely to have sufficient passengers for each destination to leave immediately after the match, resulting in either more journeys being required or longer delays and;

Elderly people, or the infirm or those with children, or simply those with other arrangements in the evening, will be forced to leave the match early to get ahead of the queues, resulting in a similar situation to the recently much criticized Emirates Stadium transport strategy – another SDG designed Transport Assessment.

 

 

Depending on just how quickly ‘Alan’ can get back to the bus park post-match will determine the extra journey time he will need to get from Kirkby Stadium back home to Crosby. He will, according to the transport strategy, be joined at the bus park by almost 21,000 other Everton supporters. All wanting to depart within the first hour by bus, post-match. Taking the average post-match peak hour waiting time predicted by SDG, ‘Alan’ will wait 50 minutes to board his bus home (although he could be faced with a wait well in excess of 1 hour and 30 minutes);

13.00 Leave home.
13.10 Catch the bus.
14.10 Reach the bus park.
14.30 Enter Kirkby Stadium.

Watch the match.

16.55 Match ends.
17.10 Reach the bus park with 9,000 other Everton supporters.
18.00 Boards pre-matchday bus.
19.00 Reach destination (Crosby).
19.10 Arrive home.

A total of a minimum of around 4 hours journey time by bus, for a home match!

Once again, the question begging to be asked is; is this the type of matchday experience 59% of Evertonians voted “YES” too? Again, according to Keith Wyness back in August it was;

“I think people will be happy with the matchday experience.”

BUS BASED PARK & RIDE FACILITIES

11.8 It is likely that approximately 23,400 of home spectators (45%) will drive to the new stadium. This equates to approximately 7,800 vehicles with the assumption of 3 spectators per vehicle. It is predicted that 1,050 of these vehicles will park on-site at the stadium or in the adjacent surface carpark. It is also forecast that 250 vehicles will park within Kirkby Town Centre car parks and 250 vehicles will be accommodated on private property within the local area which may be introduced by independent operators.

11.9 There may be further parking beyond the extent of the matchday CPZ (up to 30 minute walk), particularly within the Kirkby Business and Industrial parks to the east of Kirkby. However, this will require a significant walk for spectators along an unattractive route and is unlikely to be a significant option for anything but a very small minority of supporters. Nevertheless, we have forecast 250 vehicles parking in this large commercial area to the east of Kirkby.

 

Taking the above into account means the residual vehicles requiring a parking space in either a Park & Ride or a Park & Walk site is approximately 6,000.
Of these, 5000 vehicles or 15,000 Evertonians, (SDG estimate 3 supporters per vehicle) will need to be provided with parking spaces in “satellite locations remote from the stadium.”

SDG have identified 13 sites as possible Park and Walk sites, and 11 possible sites for Park and Ride. ALL of the Park and Walk sites along with 8 Park and Ride sites are to the east of the M57, i.e; within Kirkby. For the Park and Ride Sites outside the Knowsley Borough, they have identified;

Aintree Racecouse, 1,500 cars = 4500 supporters.

'Merseytram Interchange,' Croxteth, 740 cars = 2220 supporters.

Showcase Cinema, East Lancs Rd, 800 cars = 2400supporters.

Note these are possible sites, and not necessarily confirmed in the plan.

All other Park and Ride sites are situated to the East of the M57 in Kirkby; = 5095 supporters.

There are only two realistic crossing points from Liverpool into Kirkby; at Junction 6 of the M57 and at the East Lancs Road. Traffic from Huyton might come through Knowsley Village, and some traffic from Maghull might come through Melling.

SDG have based their calculations throughout the TA based on the home postcodes of season ticket holders. Their model in Fig 11.1 of the TA shows that 91% of all season tickets holders (and thereby all home support matchgoers) will approach Kirkby along the M57 from either direction, or under Junction 6 or along the East Lancs Road.

In order to meet the scheduled number of journeys from the Park & Ride sites Merseytravel have indicated a requirement for buses to have priority at junctions to avoid supporters being delayed in traffic. Vehicles would be fitted with ‘Selective Vehicle Detection’ which would automatically turn traffic lights green as the bus approached the junction(s). Junction 6 of the M57 is one of the junctions to have a traffic light control system. However, with 17 buses traveling between Aintree Racecourse and Westvale, approaching junction 6 from Longmore Lane and 17 buses coming off at junction 6 from the Showcase and MerseyTram sites plus the 87 matchday special buses and the other listed modes of transport that would approach Kirkby through junction 6 including 2000 proposed taxi journeys almost 200 supporter coaches and the 2,960 extra car journeys into Kirkby, all converging within such a small timeframe both pre and post-match, can only mean the pressure on Junction 6 would be enormous.

11.48 Spectators will drive to one of the Park & Ride car parks, park their car and travel by shuttle bus to the stadium bus park. The shuttle bus service to the stadium will be high frequency and high quality. It is anticipated that the shuttle bus service will operate 3 hours before a match and until approximately 2 hours after the match.

With an average of 70 people per bus and 291 journeys to and from the parks, the Transport Plan estimates that a bus can get to and from the Park & Ride sites 3 times in the period it will take to clear the crowd, so 97 buses and therefore 97 drivers, (a mixture of single and double deckers) will be required.

Pre-match, these 97 buses, making three return journeys to and from the designated Park & Ride sites, will drop off 15,000 supporters at the proposed Westvale bus park. The same Westvale bus park that 9000 supporters will be dropped off at by public bus services and matchday special buses.

The planning strategy estimates that post-match 85% or (7,994) Evertonians will want to leave on public and special buses within one hour post-match. The strategy also estimates that within that same hour, 85% or (12,847) Evertonians will want to leave on shuttle buses to be taken back to their cars at the designated Park & Ride sites, also from the proposed Westvale bus park.

Giving the incredible predicted figure of 20,841 Evertonians that SDG plan to bus out of Westvale bus park within one hour of the match ending. A strategy, based on SDG’s own calculations that is fatally flawed.

 

The evidence base used by SDG to inform the Kirkby Stadium Park and Ride strategy is taken from matchday plans, situations and comparisons at other retail park/out of city UK stadia. They are;

Sunderland, Southampton, Reading, Brighton, Swansea and Coventry.

The only one of the above stadia which could begin to compare, in terms of ground capacity, is Sunderland, and their Park and Ride site is limited to 1,000 cars. The proposed Kirkby scheme would be in excess of 5,000. At Southampton’s St. Mary’s stadium, the Park and Ride site doesn't even operate on weeknights!

The fact is that there is no Park and Ride strategy that comes even close to the  magnitude of what would be the biggest Park and Ride scheme in the country.

Other ‘informing evidence’ within the TA is frankly just as ropey as the above. Here are just two examples regarding Park and Ride/transport;

12.4 The results of the 1996 JMP surveys of Everton FC supporters were reported within the Merseytravel “Stadia Access Study”. The study reported that of the 70% of Everton FC supporters using their car to travel to Goodison Park, 84% of car users indicated that they would be willing to walk up to a mile or for 20 minutes for a car parking space and this included 30% who would be willing to walk over a mile if necessary. The remaining 16% would only walk up to half a mile.

And this regarding the mode of transport analysis;

 

7.58 Liverpool FC Spectator Travel Behaviour

Surveys undertaken for Liverpool FC also assist in understanding football spectator behaviour and provide a good comparison.

7.59 The mode split for Liverpool matchday travel on a weekend and weekday evening match is presented in Table 7.4 below. The mode split information was based on telephone interviews with UK based season-ticket, day-ticket holding home fans and face to face interviews with away fans.

OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORT

SDG estimate that;

3000 Evertonians will use Park & Walk sites that “are within a 30 minute walk of the stadium.”

2,090 other Evertonians will also walk to Kirkby Stadium.

2,090 Evertonians will arrive in Kirkby by Taxi;

13.3 It is estimated that 4% of spectators will travel to the new stadium by local taxi services. This equates to 2,090 people traveling to the stadium on a matchday. Assuming 3 spectators per vehicle approximately 700 vehicle trips are expected to be made in the local area. If we assume that each taxi makes 3 trips an hour there is likely to be a demand for approximately 180 taxis on matchdays.

What SDG omit to calculate is the post match situation. Liverpool hackneys cannot pick up in Knowsley, and Private Hire's must be pre-booked.

There is also no holding area for any pre-booked Private Hire cars, and it's fair to assume that, in the whole of Knowsley, some of the 240 available cabs are being used elsewhere, or not on the road.

1,045 Evertonians will cycle to Kirkby Stadium. Although SDG are quick to point out that this number could significantly rise;

14.20 The predicted mode share of spectators cycling to the new stadium is forecast to be 2% or 1,045 spectators. For a 55,000 seat stadium approximately 10,000 Everton spectators could cycle to the stadium.

14.21 100 secure cycle stands will be provided within the Town Centre to provide parking for 200 cycles which can be used on non matchdays. Parking for 240 cycles will also be provided for the retail units and some of these stands could be used on matchdays.

The calculation of the initial 1,000 cycling Evertonians vying for only 200 cycle stands in the town centre, plus some of the proposed 240 at the retail units means that at least around 2/3 of the cyclists will have nowhere to park their bikes.

 

COST

Not unexpectedly, an actual figure regarding the costs to Everton Football Club on the implementation of the transport strategy is not given within the Tesco planning application. There is though an indication to the scale of cost to the club  within the Draft Proposed Heads Of Terms S106 Agreements, Document 16 of the Tesco planning application;

2.4 EFC will provide the following in connection with the use of the football stadium:

(a) Coach/bus parking facilities, including access arrangements;

(b) Park and walk sites, including access improvements and signage;

(c) Park and ride sites, including access improvements, traffic direction
signing, and agreement to ensure an appropriate level of bus provision is
available on match days to adequately serve these facilities.

These will be provided within an appropriate distance of the stadium, and the
stadium will be restricted to a capacity of [x] until these facilities are in place.

2.5 EFC will meet all reasonable costs associated with establishing match day residents parking schemes across areas of Kirkby identified by the Council as requiring such provision, up to a capped figure. EFC will also meet the reasonable costs of any future extension to the areas covered by such scheme, if it becomes apparent within 1 year of opening of the stadium that this is necessary to regulate parking or encourage greater use of Park and walk/Park and Ride facilities.

2.6 The Applicant will meet the reasonable costs of any other Traffic Regulation Orders required as a consequence of the Development.

2.7 The Applicant will procure the carrying out of traffic studies into the impact on the highway network of the stadium and the retail/commercial uses proposed at 6
months and 1 year after opening.

2.8 EFC will meet the reasonable costs of establishing and operating an Event Day Parking Scheme, in consultation with the Council and Merseyside Police.

As yet the cost to the club is an unknown factor but given the monumental size of the transport strategy, it seems for once Keith Wyness was spot on when he was recently quoted in the Echo regarding the time and money that would be spent;

“We will be spending an enormous amount of time and money addressing this question.”

 

Just to make it clear, these are the words spoken by the CEO of Everton Football Club, back in August last year;

This stadium will be the best served transportation wise of any stadium in the north west if not the UK. There will be a new rail link at Kirkby and a new station is being planned right now and built. It is right on the M57 motorway and we think Mersey Tram might come into the picture.

Keith Wyness, 09 August 2007.

All the above information, facts and figures are taken from the submitted Tesco planning application. This is the vision of the future matchday experience for every Evertonian if the proposed Kirkby Stadium and Tesco developed retail park on the edge of Kirkby town centre is, to coin a phrase “delivered.”

The CEO of Tesco Stores Limited called it a “win, win, win situation.”

Knowsley Council “a once in a lifetime opportunity.”

Everton shareholder Robert Earl “Manna from heaven.”

The CEO of Everton Football Club “The deal of the century.”

 Having seen exactly what they and SDG would have in ‘store’ for future generations of Evertonians, it seems it is only the genuine supporters of the worlds greatest team who are the only ones not to be invited to the party.

NIL SATIS NISI OPTIMUM?

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


Brian Richardson
1   Posted 30/01/2008 at 22:10:51

Report abuse

Do yourselves a favour, lads, give a bit of balance to your PR. At the moment I can’t even be bothered to listen to your argument as it is pure propaganda. Until you can concede there are some positives about the Kirkby proposal - and until you stop picking out every single miniscule detail to cut apart - nobody will be particularly impressed. You are just coming across as manic loons. Just as Evertonians are too clever to be fooled by Big Keith or Sir Terry, we’re also too clever to be fooled by this. We need debate, not a brainwashing attempt.
Robert Carney
2   Posted 30/01/2008 at 22:17:35

Report abuse

Richardson;

you, like so many other people, hate to see organised amatuers giving up their time to dig out facts available to all. These are not propaganda, but if you cannot bother to read them why take part in the debate.

KEIOC have consistently exposed the lies and lack of plans by our board. If you cannot put up try shutting up.
Danny Mullally
3   Posted 30/01/2008 at 22:31:16

Report abuse

The article is one of the better statements released from KEIOC. It does not resort to absurd name calling and only translates official figures released by the club and associates.
As a No voter I wish that the article would have an impact but I fear that it is too little too late. The only way that the move will stop is if one of the three parties withdraws from the agreement-either EFC, Tesco, or Knowsley council. And lets face it, there are too many fat cheques at stake for that to happen.
What will be interesting is to see if the echo will publish this article. I suspect that it wont see the light of day with the post or Echo.


Brian Richardson
4   Posted 30/01/2008 at 22:36:08

Report abuse

Well you hit the nail on the head with "amateurs". The KEIOC boys are all great lads and I admire them. I just believe that their statistics are even less accurate than those coming from our board. While we may have some truth-benders on the board, some of the proposals from KEIOC have just been fanciful. I don’t think it is fair to give people the impression it would be easy to build another stadium in Liverpool. Whatever you may think of him, BK is a Blue and he does not want to strip the soul out of our club. However romantic it may be to suggest Goodison can be redeveloped or we can plonk a new stadium a couple of hundred yards down the road, it simply isn’t true.

The guys on the board are most probably not the kind of people you’d enjoy a pint with. The KEIOC boys, by contrast, are exactly the kind of people you’d join in the pub. Sadly for us, the guys you wouldn’t have a laugh and a drink with are the ones who know what to do. It’s a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.
Dick Fearon
5   Posted 30/01/2008 at 22:35:55

Report abuse

If there is a ’deliverable’ alternative to Kirkby what is it, precisely how will it be delivered and can it be built in time to stop our best players from transferring to clubs that have attracted investors on the back of their new stadiums.
Bilbo Wentworth
6   Posted 30/01/2008 at 23:06:29

Report abuse

Brian, do us a favour and stop patronising the lads and girls from KEIOC. There are professional people in that group and want what is best for the club, not a middle of the range basic fit stadium in location no one would dream of visiting, unless they had too. I cant see any positives to moving to this location, ALL the facts that have been presented Brian are in the planing application if you bother to read them.
Dan Brierley
7   Posted 30/01/2008 at 23:21:51

Report abuse

Every project ever undertook has its share of criticism and flaws. Kirkby is not perfection, and flaws will be found in the planning, as per ANY stadium or large structure that has pretty much ever been built. Anybody wishing for an example might want to do a bit of research into the new Wembley, and the problems that faced.

In spite of all the attempts, I still slightly lean towrds kirkby because I dont see any other firm options on the table. GP does not generate enough cash to sustain decent growth, and I expect is one of the main reasons we are not getting any investment.

Its all very well not believing the board, but there needs to be concrete evidence of viable alternatives. I can honestly put my hand on my heart and say that Kirkby stands out as the only deliverable project available to EFC. We would all love to stay as is or closer to the centre, but I just dont see how. The other examples of proposed sites look amateur without any backing up of questions they raise by location.

The current situation does remind me of the United ’breakaway’ group that promised a terrible future should the glaziers take over. Those guys were genuine about their feelings too, and genuinely believed it would be deterimental to the club, in the same way that KEIOC believe Kirkby is a wrong step. This current board have my backing, due to the fact they have put their money where their mouth is, and invested in the squad. We have gone from relegation fodder to european contenders, and its down to the chairman, no ifs or buts. And spare me the ’Walter advised on the Moyes appointment’. A million people probably advised Bill, but ultimately he made the decision. That to me is enough I need to base my judgement on.

I feel this has gone on so long now, that people would find it hard to swallow their pride should Kirkby prove to be the right thing to do. A new stadium cant fail if it gets filled week in week out.
Barry Kingham
8   Posted 30/01/2008 at 23:38:45

Report abuse

I don’t understand some of the claims from Everton about the uses of public transport for the match. I would predict that a far greater number than 4000 would want to use the train to get there - particularly if you are travelling from town or the Wirral.

Getting a bus from town to kirkby is a nightmare - ever tried it at rush hour?

Everton apparently has the most amount of fans that walk to the match in the premier league which assumes they live in the local area (2 miles radius). Will they be driving now to kirkby? Seen Scotland Road / Kirkdale Valley after the match? Chaos for 45 minutes at least.

At Nurnberg, there were very large trains which had at least 12 carriages waiting at the stadium station - add this to the metro system (a 30 minute walk from the ground). We were all happy when we won, but the queues were terrible and many fans took well over 1-2 hours to make it back into town. And that was good, proper organisation. What hope have we got with awful arriva single deckers and merseyrails 3 carriage cattleshed trains.

And my favourite quote: 1000 people will be cycling to the ground. What a joke. And so is the claim about merseytram - theres not a cat in hells chance that will be on the table again.

Its not going to be pleasant getting to the ground and home again. For me its the number one issue - I want to move (after changing my mind) but this has got to be seriously looked at again.
David Thompson
9   Posted 30/01/2008 at 23:55:39

Report abuse

For those who criticise the article as boring or less accurate than the stats from the club, just look at the verbatim stuff from the Stadiumm Access Report.

SDG estimate 72% of spectators will exit the stadium to the South. The 20,000 plus who are uswing the Park & RIde or the special bus routes will have to cross a footbridge over Valley Road, to join the queue on the other side.

The report states the supporters will queue at one point for 3 minutes, and then in a queue of no more than 8,900 for 13 minutes TO CROSS THE FOOTBRIDGE.

Allowing for walking time, that’s going to be 20 minutes plus before you even join the 20000 others waiting for a bus.

Just try to think where you were 20 minutes after tonights game (assuming you were there).

It was pretty cold after the game tonight, but at least we were moving. Imagine waiting for an hour or so in that cold, and then imagine if it was raining.



In what way does that improve the match day experience for Evertonians?

That’s without the rest of the serious issues within the report.
David Thompson
10   Posted 31/01/2008 at 00:06:10

Report abuse

Brian RIchardson...you say "Until you can concede there are some positives about the Kirkby proposal"...

I’m trying, but I can’t find anything.

A poor design, mid-range with a basis fit out and the end of extremely poor transport links, with a huge debt of £80M attached to it.

The only positive I can see is that I won’t have to stump up front for a season ticket because after the first couple of expeditions there, you’ll be able to walk right in.

23,000 extra nu-fans? Not for long.




What do you see as the postives?
Colm Kavanagh
11   Posted 31/01/2008 at 00:09:23

Report abuse

There?s a certain irony in the words of Brian Richardson and his attack on the legitimacy of those within KEIOC. I once knew of a spiv by the name of Bryan Richardson who oversaw the demise of Coventry City, a club who once prided themselves as one of the top three clubs to enjoy longevity in the top division in England alongside Arsenal and Everton. A spiv of a chairman, in it for solely what he could take out of it, he was one of those who instigated their move away from Highfield Road to a retail park, mainly sponsored by (surprise, surprise) Tesco. Where they reside today. "Soulless City". They managed to get him out of their club and I believe he chanced his arm for a while at midlands rivals Derby County!! Chancer!

Still, he wore a suit, looked the part, talked the talk and was, obviously, a step above the "amateurs" outside who cared deeply for their club and doggedly placed under microscopic inspection everything their club tried to pull over many fans? eyes.

I?ve stopped debating the ground issue with clowns who take at face value everything they?ve been told by our PR department. The lies from within the club are long and many. If they want to be gullible and have the wool pulled over their eyes, so be it.

I await Mr. Wyness? oh so bold claim of having the first spade turned in June or July!!! As me Dad always said, "bullshit baffles brains...."
Alex Pat
12   Posted 31/01/2008 at 02:09:36

Report abuse

What part of ? More people voted Yes than No? to the move do the No voters not understand?!
Where is the deliverable, financed alternative?
Why do the No?s state they aren?t going to go to the new stadium? because if thats the case they obviously only go to Goodison now because they support the ground and not the team!
Instead of pulling apart the one and only viable option that is Kirkby, why not lobby those like Bestway and LCC to put their money where their mouths are and actually put in a planning application and a cast iron guarantee of finance for a stadium? Or is that going against the grain to suggest the No?s actually do something positive for once?!
Rupert Sullivan
13   Posted 31/01/2008 at 02:20:51

Report abuse

KEIOC - A good article which raises many interesting points. Like you (apparently) I am continually bemused by the ability of some sections of EFC fans to swallow the info being released by the club. As your article clearly points out, the plans are laughable at best and utterly incompetent at worst: I am more surprised however that anyone at EFC could actually approve such plans.

I am not pro Kirkby and so perhaps you are preaching to the choir in my case however, I would add that I think that responses to your work may be better could you support them further with alternatives - for example, are you able to take the same stats and provide hypothetical examples for how access to the loop would be covered? A big ask maybe; but either way, if all you succeed in doing is providing an alternative voice to that of EFC then you are doing a brilliant job. Thanks
Gavin Ramejkis
14   Posted 31/01/2008 at 06:43:49

Report abuse

Colm - very well put, over the years I’ve worked for CEOs of very large companies many of whom appeared only to be in that role through the old boy network and school tie and many with questionable business acumen or ability being carried on the shoulders of true giants. Brian Richardson all I would ask in response to the frankly well presented item is ask the club to comment as the figures appear to come from documentation they too have in their possession and the 1000 car spaces available to the club by the way are for club employees and guests (those fabled corporates lining up to come?)

Alex Pat in response to viable alternatives I’d suggest £80m to £150m depending on whether or not the CEO will admit the costs is £80 to £150m no matter where you spend it - do you honestly think that amount of money could not be spent at Goodison Park on a gradual rebuild or with alternative partners within Liverpool with existing proven transport links?

My favourite assumption in the report is the cycling take up, does anyone know anyone that cycles to the game now? I personally find the idea of queueing unsheltered in all weathers like cattle offensive so no thanks.
Michael Tracey
15   Posted 31/01/2008 at 05:42:01

Report abuse

Brian, if you bothered to read the whole article then you would see that it stating facts and not scaremongering! Propaganda is what was feed to us by the Board, Fact is demonstrated in the above article.The Original Kirkby bullshit we were feed obviously didn’t include such facts as the vote would of been a firm no! A result that obviously those So called Professionals who sit on our board did not want! I agree with David Thompson I can’t find one positive thing about the Tesco Cow Shed either. The Design is shit, The Transport is shit, The location is shit and pretty much this whole Kirkby proposal is shit! I am sorry but the longer this goes on the more it starts to reek. I am sorry but I have absolutely no faith in The Board as time and again they are found wanting! Its ashame that there are so many who are so easily led by bullshit that got us into whole arguement. I hope that you are one who has to stand in the pissing rain for hours onend waiting for a bus or train! A day at the football is meant to be an enjoyable experience not a negative experience, which by reading the above information it will surelt be. To add to the buses, there are also cars as well. So how can a town with an infrastructure for only 40,000 people cope with double that number god only knows!
Bilbo Wentworth
16   Posted 31/01/2008 at 07:46:39

Report abuse

A lot of supporters keep on asking to see the other alternatives to the thing in kirkby. Remember it is EVERTON who self imposed the so called exclusivity agreement and still wont talk to anyone about the other sites on offer.
Once we have gone, you can never come back, take the time out to read all of the planing application with a stiff drink, you will need it.
DAvid Moore
17   Posted 31/01/2008 at 09:41:02

Report abuse

Sorry to sem rude but this article is about 1 year to late. I think everyone should look at Australia with the AFL. THere are 10 teams in victoria and not all are city based and only 3 venues(one of which only one team can pplay home games in) so effectively 2 venues. Every "home" team that plays there still gets great support and the atmosphere is magic.

My point is that if they can have a home stadium which everybody uses out their boundaries why can’t we??
Gordon Blair
18   Posted 31/01/2008 at 08:50:08

Report abuse

Cards on the table... I know we need to be in a bigger Stadium, I don’t really have an issue with Kirkby being the location and I understand that we’re not inudated with deliverable alternatives.

However, the manner in which this Project has been managed (using the term loosely) by the Club leaves me with very little confidence that the Club can deliver a satisfactory solution.

The flagrant disregard for the realities of the situation (the potentially disastrous transport situation being a prime example) baffles me.
What other entertainment business would make it so difficult for it’s customers to use it’s services?
If there were any cast-iron way to guarantee a drop off in custom, putting this level of inconvenience in the way would be it.

I’m saddened more than anything, when I heard that we were going to get a brand-spanking new Stadium, accomodating 55,000, within 4 miles of Goodison, I was made up. My little’uns 2 now, and she’ll have been able to start coming to the game for the last season at GP, and then to the new ground.
To be honest, I’d rather sit behind a pillar, or with a letterbox view at the back of the Lower Bullens with her, than put her through that ordeal trying to get a train out of Kirkby every other saturday.
I appreciate that the Loop probably isn’t the answer, but it’s starting to look that Kirkby isn’t either, mainly because of the way it’s been done. Gutted
Bob Fletcher
19   Posted 31/01/2008 at 09:32:58

Report abuse

I wasn’t aware that Everton ran the bus services on Merseyside, I thought that Arriva and Stagecoach were the major operaters. Incidentally, if you live in Crosby you can commute to Kirkby Town Centre by using the 133/134 bus which goes through Melling and along Kirkby Row to the Town Centre.
Graham Nixon
20   Posted 31/01/2008 at 09:27:38

Report abuse

Brian Richardson, can you not see/hear the ’spin’ from Wyness prior to the ’vote’ last summer? In the article above, it was put across that Wyness & Co provided us with the quoteregarding transportational plans: ?Fans will be asked to review the plans in detail before they vote in the ballot in the first week of August with the results due later that month. They will be shown transportation plans, to reassure them that Kirkby is the right location.? I don’t know about you mate, but there was no plans shown to me or 35-37,000 other fans before the vote! Forgive me for sounding somewhat naive, but can this be described as a miniscule detail in KEIOC’s campaign for putting across facts?Something tells me some people are won over by glossy brochures more than hard facts.
John Lloyd
21   Posted 31/01/2008 at 09:43:59

Report abuse

A couple of arguments that have sprung up by yes-voters to either justify or help them sleep at night are -

a)There is nothing better on the table at the moment, hence voting yes to kirkby.

b)The votes was Yes.....get over it!!

In response to both of these arguments, nothing better is on the table because EFC have only EVER wanted this one option & have refused to discuss, investigate & explore other options....simple as!

The vote was a yes vote, but I honestly believe that if the evertoninans had the facts, cold hard FACTS (such as planning permission doc, transport plans etc) then the vote would have been no!! As it was , some good blues were sold out by lies from thier own club. Proven lies at that, and this is what this piece will be another piece of eveidence at the lies cast by our chairman & ceo.

I am an Everton fan, the stadium is not everything as I will be a blue no matter where we play. But this is wrong, every way I look at it, its wrong.

I urge every evrtoninan out there to get as much info about it as possible and look at the FACTS, not the propaganda (from either side) and ask yourself..........is this what you want for our club?
Neil Pearse
22   Posted 31/01/2008 at 09:57:53

Report abuse

As a well known pro Kirkby on this site (have to move to increase revenues, we are not rich, no other financially viable alternative) none the less I want to praise and thank KEIOC for this piece of work. This is exactly the kind of pressure we need to keep putting on Wyness & Co to make sure that, if Kirkby it is, it is good as it can be.

Realistically, I can’t imagine any new 50,000 stadium being put anywhere without major problems getting people in and out. That’s logistics! (I took ages to get back from the Emirates last time I went, Reading was horrible, and old places too like Spurs and West Ham can be a nightmare.) The reality is that much of it will be solved by good planning, and much will be worked out when it’s up and running. That’s how these things go.

But all credit to KEIOC for putting on the pressure.
Gavin Ramejkis
23   Posted 31/01/2008 at 10:09:09

Report abuse

Neil bravo for a creditable response from a pro voter, good reply again mate
Neil Pearse
24   Posted 31/01/2008 at 10:08:40

Report abuse

John Lloyd, personally I have never used the "the vote was yes, so get over it" argument, and I wish my fellow Yes voters would stop using it. There should always be continued debate about something so important.

But I take issue with your first point that there is only one option on the table because only one option has been looked at. Simply untrue! Read the large planning report that was published on this site a few weeks back - all sorts of named options were investigated.

Anyway, and I really don’t know how many times this needs to be said, the problem is not primarily FINDING another site (although this is bad enough), the problem is FUNDING another site.

Everton simply cannot afford to put in place the financing to build a major new stadium inside the city boundaries. That’s it! Liverpool FC can barely afford it, and by accounts in the papers yesterday will be paying £30M a year in interest charges for the forseeable future to the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia Bank in order to finance their (scaled down) version in Stanley Park. No one will lend us that amount of money or anything close. And if we took on that scale of debt people on this site (including me) would be rightly howling about the mismanagement of the club (personally I believe LFC are taking a Leeds United type of financial risk).

We must have to move, and Kirkby is the best we can afford under our current ownership. Not searching high and low for other sites has nothing to do with it.
Paul Lenehan
25   Posted 31/01/2008 at 10:23:49

Report abuse

As a Blue from Ireland, could I ask the KEIOC boys what their main concern is. Is it the fact we are leaving the city, the design of the stadium (location in retail park), planning isues as discussed above or the finances of the move. Im sure im going to get plenty of all of the aboves but im just interested to see what the main issue/concern is.
Tim Keen
26   Posted 31/01/2008 at 10:33:07

Report abuse

My major issues with the stadium are:
(1) The football club will be worse off - the repayments on the loans taken out will be more than the extra income the stadium produces. This is based on KW’s estimates of income and the latest estimates of our contributions.
(2) The location of the ground - a retail park 9 miles from the city centre is totally the wrong location for any football club let alone one as traditional as ours.
(3) The travel plan - if people can’t easily get there they will not go. Using the figures from the planning application we are talking about a 2 hour journey home being deemed acceptable for people who live within 7 miles of the ground! Those of us who travel further could be talking 1.5 hours to get back to our cars and be on our way home after the final whislte.
Dave Thompson
27   Posted 31/01/2008 at 10:59:08

Report abuse

Bob Fletcher...have you read the article?

There may be buses from Crosby to Kirkby, as there are to and from lots of other places but the clubs own consultant who produced the Transport Assessment says there will be a shortfall in required capacity of 9,400 seats!

As a consequence, Everton will contracting Arriva and Stagecoach to run the 15 extra bus services.

The figures don’t add up, however, both in the number of buses they estimate as being required and the size/capability of the bus station to facilitate the services.
steve wolfe
28   Posted 31/01/2008 at 10:25:38

Report abuse

neil as an obviously rationaly sounding yes voter , can you explain to me were the 80 plus million is coming from for the virtually free kirkby stadium???
Simon Taylor
29   Posted 31/01/2008 at 11:14:06

Report abuse

I’m in the "Yes" camp - however, in recent weeks I’ve been increasingly concerned over this very issue.

I usually park in Anfield Comp & the walk from there takes about 10 mins. Naively I expected that an out of town location would come with the benefit of decent parking within a sensible walking distance.

The thought that 20,000 fans are going to use a park & ride scheme is fanciful in the extreme. The station at Kirkby is also completely inadequate for what’s being proposed.

If this detail had been widely available in the public domain before the vote - I think the outcome may have been different. If we’re going, then they need to come up with "Plan B" to their transport ideas, as this simply won’t work.
robert carney
30   Posted 31/01/2008 at 11:32:55

Report abuse

Bob Fletcher;
Everton are not a bus company. In that small sentence you arecorrect. Look to the future, Everton if Kirkby go ahead will hope to make money out of the park and ride scheme which is planned from Aintree racecourse. Bolton tried this, they now have to run free buses from the town centre to there abominal stadium. Otherwise what few fans they have left will disappear.
Sam List
31   Posted 31/01/2008 at 10:27:50

Report abuse

I Just read this. Please sent it to the board at goodison as it sums up what they should be concerned with " What other entertainment business would make it so difficult for itfs customers to use itfs services?"

also DAvid Moore, what a load of shit about melboune
boundries- people go to those games as the 2 venues are both located at major stations in melbourne’s cbd. after getting pissed on friday or sat its an easy walk/ train ride to the venues. Look at adelaides AAMI stadium 55000 capacity but only 22000 to 35000 show up. why? as to get there you have to travel to the city and then to the north west. I love australian fooball but its such a fucking hike i never go to those games. Most fans in adelaide are clambering for a cental venue cause they feel the same.

But while we are debating this, why doesnt blue bill just rip out some seats and put in 10- 20 more sky boxes and better hospitality as this is the reason why everyone wants us to move. Easy solved with 5 million pound, paid for in two years from revenue from said boxes.
David Thompson
32   Posted 31/01/2008 at 12:10:29

Report abuse

Something that hasn’t been mentioned is the background figures upon which SDG have made their calculations.

Their starting point is a survey of Evertonians conducted in 1996, and a more recent survey of Liverpool fans, about travel to and from the match.

In 1996, 72% of Everton fans chose to drive to the game. How accurate that figure is now, I don’t know.

SDG have decided, arbitrarliy, that Everton have the opportunity to use ’carrot and stick’ measure to force car use down to 45%, and all of the figues are based on that assumption, There is no evidence for this, and no study or survey has been undertaken to ask fans how they would travel to the game.

There is no other modern out-of-town stadium development that has car usage at less than 60%, so the figure of 45% is optimistic in the extreme. It could be argued that the fans are accounted for in either the new buses or park 7 ride buses, so the pressure on bus provision either way remains the same. However, if car usage is greater than 45%, the resulting congestion will also be greater, and the transponders in the buses which change traffic lights to green will cause even greater chaos.

Of course, Mr Wyness has stated that the anticipated increase in support will come from the 4 million people who will now live within a 45 minute drive of the new stadium. The SDG report bases the whole Transport Assessment on the locations of existing season ticket holders.

So if Mr Wyness is correct in his theory, the TA is completely off the mark, and if SDG are correct, then it’s Mr Wyness who is off the mark. Given that the club, and Tesco, commsissioned SDG in the first place, you would think they would be at least using the same data set.

On the other hand, Mr Wyness might just have been making a statement without thinking it through. Sound familiar?
Rich Banks
33   Posted 31/01/2008 at 12:09:45

Report abuse

20 mins after the end of last night’s game (not the coldest of nights, but certainly not a mild night) I was sat back in my mates car with the heater on. 1h 30 mins after the game I was back home in Sale, Manchester, approx. 35 miles away from Goodison. Apart from the fact that this proposed stadium is in Kirkby full stop, a place I would NEVER choose to go to, the transport issues worry me greatly re my "matchday experience". If we actually move there on the basis of the current facts from the plans/above article, I will not be getting a season ticket anymore, and I am currently on 25 consecutive years - not bad when I am not yet 33!!

If it takes me 1h 30mins to get back to my or my mate’s car at some park and ride scheme, and then takes me a further hour to travel back to Sale, there will be at least one less long-term fan going to the game. I implore anyone who thinks it’ll be easier to get Kirkby than Goodison, to go to a Bolton match at home, or indeed a concert at the Reebok. It’s 750 metres from J6 of the M61 and it takes over 1hr to actually reach it by car!

Have Everton considered how many fans they will lose over this? I would love a debate on this, and would love to see Everton’s response to this article, but I shall not hold my breath. Unless this exclusivity agreement with Tesco ends, the board won’t take any of this ’on board’.

As for the people cycling to the game, this bit just makes me laugh. FFS, no-one cycles to a game, certainly no one will be cycling from Liverpool across the M57 to Kirkby. And the fact there will be 1000 people cycling to the match, with only 200 spaces to lock up said cycles, I can’t wait to see the 800 on sale down Kirkby market/eBay after a game!
Christine Foster
34   Posted 31/01/2008 at 11:32:57

Report abuse

Jesus H Christ. ! If every Yes voter was able to read this document prior to the ballot lets be honest, there would NEVER have been a yes vote. The fact that the club had committed itself to Kirkby well prior to the ballot only serves to underline the fact that this was a PR exercise to placate fans concerns, no more no less.

But hang on for a minute, Lets just say that the stated figures are inaccurate. You don;t need to be a mathematician to work out that 50,000 people trying to exit a ground and get home via car, bus or train (cycling?? for fucks sake....) This is NOT within a city boundary where the majority of fans live within a walk, a bus or a train journey. There are multiple routes to and from Goodison not so Kirkby. You see guys.. Goodison Park has an nfastructure built around it and it merges into that infrastructure. It allows people to walk to the city (visiting fans..my, they will love the matchday experience won’t they???)
One aspect that is not covered is the health and safety issues of so many people in trains buses and just trying to cross the road. Crush loading anyone??? accidents happen in poorly planned projects. This one is waiting for it to happen.. lets say we play Millwall in the Cup and 3000 of their supports end up queuing alongside families waiting for buses (Just how are the police going to segregate visiting fans??? )

So, yes.. Kirby will have a stadium, but who will fill it? I used to be in Chester at 1.30pm and still arrive to take my seat after walking from the city. Try doing that in future, no chance.. what the report doesn’t say is the utter gridlock that will result from the 20,000 vehicles trying to get into and out of Kirkby. How long will the queue be to get to the queue????
I for one remember when Goodison managed 50,000 - 60,000 fans I don’t remember chaos, the stadium was empty in mins and the roads around Goodison clear within 30 mins.. That WHY Liverpool are in Stanley Park.. I wonder what a matchday experience will be like at the new Anfield?.. 4 hours on a bus? I don’t think so.

Sorry guys I am firmly with redeveloping Goodison over a number of years and staying were we are. Plan B. because Plan A will have Everton FC in Gridlock and the team will end up playing to a half empty stadium live on Sky (at a cost)
And then there is the cost of getting to and from the game, the cost of parking, the HASSLE. But of course I am being negative, the people of Kirkby will welcome 50,000 football fans with open arms won’t they? At least they will be able to walk to the stadium. I mean, it will be their club then won’t it? Because it won’t feel like ours..

Disgraceful.. A mandate for a new stadium my backside.
Peter Roberts
35   Posted 31/01/2008 at 12:01:49

Report abuse

I?m not a season ticket holder so did not get the chance to vote on Kirkby.

But my one gripe is this: despite the exclusivity agreement being in place, why did LCC not come up with a viable alternative until it was too late, and then made up the cock-and-bull story of the Loop site (which having been in the vicinity several times in recent weeks, I can categorically say it would be a massive mistake to move there) in the vain hope of swaying Kenwright and Wyness?

From the club?s point of view, Kirkby is the only real alternative to staying at Goodison, which, cherished as she is, the Grand Old Lady is rapidly deteriorating and will only get worse.

The nearest example I can think of at the moment to the Kirkby Dome is the Madejski Stadium in Reading. Has no-one compared the Kirkby project to a transport organisation serving a stadium half the capacity, and which is in similar profile to the town as the Kirkby project (for those who have not been, The MS is roughly 3 1/2 miles outside of Reading Town Centre? Reading itself is a town of around 150000 people - factor in Wokingham and Bracknell and the agglomeration becomes nearly 350000. Liverpool and Greater Liverpool has a population of nearly 400000. Surely it is feasible therefore to apply a transport links project to the Kirkby project. FWIW, the MS was not built with a retail park, but the Green Park business estate is right by it.
Christine Foster
36   Posted 31/01/2008 at 12:41:36

Report abuse

In answer to the a further point regarding stadiums here in Australia, The major stadiums in the major cities where built fro other events eg The Commonwealth Games, the Rugby World Cup, The Olympics.. The infrastructure costs for these sites for transportion cost Hundreds of Millions and where picked up by the taxpayer. Thats why out of town sites in the UK and Europe struggle with transport infrastructure because the taxpayer will not fund.

And before anyone makes a smart comment about me being an Aussie so what relevance do I have in the discussion, I still go to approx 8 home matches a season. I was born and raised around Scotland Rd. I was a season ticket holder for over 30 consecutive years until I came here 6 years ago. I think that qualifies as an interested party.
Michael Hunt
37   Posted 31/01/2008 at 12:33:48

Report abuse

Availability of nearby car parking seems MASSIVELY INADEQUATE! Do you think we can park on the retail park as long as we have bought something from there too? E.g. parking on many such retail parks while you go elsewhere can be done as long as you have a valid receipt. This way you could buy summat from Tescos, stick it in the motor then go the match. Problem could be if there is short time limit for such parking e.g. less than two hours.
In addition to this, maybe there will be other large car parks cropping up nearby to make a mint from match goers parking? If the Club seriously wants to attract new fans from the catchment area they better make sure there is lots of available parking. The ’crush loading’ alternative on public transport is not going to be acceptable to many!
Mike Kay
38   Posted 31/01/2008 at 12:59:00

Report abuse

Kirkby here we come! - cant wait!!
Andy Fearns
39   Posted 31/01/2008 at 12:43:55

Report abuse

I live in Kirkby, on the way out in fact just by the Pear Tree.

I?ve been getting public transport or driving the match for about 20 odd years. I?m quite looking forward to not having to do that anymore. Does that make me any different to someone who currently lives within walking distance of goodison now?

I intend to ride to the new stadium (just need to find 999 mates to join me ).

But if anyone wants to park on my drive let me know, I?m sure we come to some arrangement.



Graham Clare
40   Posted 31/01/2008 at 12:42:54

Report abuse

So what are we going to do about it?? If LFC fans are planning to buy out their owners with £500m when they can see their club is hitting the rocks, why can’t we stop this ground move or demand a better response from the club to our concerns. We are not being told the truth and that is wrong, this is our club. I am however worried that LCC and Bradley have gone quiet. Have they given up or was it a smokescreen to save face?
Lee Spargo
41   Posted 31/01/2008 at 12:58:28

Report abuse

I’m sorry, but I got about half-way down this and then stopped reading.

Why?, well because we’re asked to read this with an open mind. It’s quite obvious however, that whoever wrote this did not take his own advice when looking at the proposals and then writing this article. Every single potential problem has been blown out of all proportion. In every example that is given, the worst possible scenario has been presumed. For instance, the guy who uses the train to go to Kirkdale and then wlak to Goodison. Well, for the proposed journey and times for that same guy’s trip to an from Kirkby is based upon the assumption that he would be the very last person in the que for the train after the match. It is also based on the presumption that he will have to walk 15 mins to and from his ’origin’ station, regardless of how far he actually lives from Aigburth station (which is not stated). Even with this sensationalist style of analysis, his journey has been extended by only 35 mins!

Then there’s the mater of the parking enforcement zone. Well I’ve got news for you lads, you’re not supposed to park in the residentail area around Goodison - so there would be no change there.

And finally, before I smash my monitor screen in frustration, what’s all this fuss about possibly having to que after the match to cross a foot-bridge to get over the road? Forgive me here, but wasn’t this exactly the same idea that was proposed by KEIOC as part of the ’loop’ proposal?

Oh, the irony.
Gavin Ramejkis
42   Posted 31/01/2008 at 13:49:52

Report abuse

Lee Spargo sorry to piss on your chips but as a driver with disabled passengers and as many other disabled badge holders have done for years, I park on the local roads to Goodison Park legally which allows my passengers to continue going to the match. Can you tell me and my passengers and the other disabled badge holders why a quick fuck you from abled bodied match goers such as yourself makes this park and ride and exclusion zone with "only a 30 minute walk" feasible?

As far as the scenarios go the club engaged SDG to write the document quoted and you will probably find that unless the examples given left before the final whistle they would easily be in a queue with the thousands herded like cattle to the train or buses, be fair and guesstimate a mid point in the queue still adds significantly to the journey time and the fifteen minutes quoted is from SDG NOT KEIOC.
carl Roper
43   Posted 31/01/2008 at 14:00:44

Report abuse

"Read with an open mind". Err, like you guys did? You’ve lost the big argument so now you move on to minutiae which wont mobilise anybody. Would it help if we moved the pubs near Goodison you drink in to Kirkby?
John Lloyd
44   Posted 31/01/2008 at 14:46:26

Report abuse

Just in response to Neil Pearse’s response!! ha ha

You have a good balance view & I agree with your reasoning of why you voted yes mate (basically increase revenue) but my other gripe about that is the amount that you may believe we are paying for kirkby, by the way what do you think it is? Cos No-one else knows & even in the AGM the figures were all quite brushed over & again nothing concrete. It has risen & risen & risen in quotes from the club from £30 million to now £110 million............if that is the ballpark figure we are putting into this, then why cant we redevelop goodison over a period of time??? It can be done the reports are out there. I’m not convinvced by loop proposal either but Kirkby is a campaign built on smokescreen & mirrors from EFC & Tesco & its not gonna be what we want/need/demand & expect from our great club.
Rich Banks
45   Posted 31/01/2008 at 14:48:40

Report abuse

Who mentioned the Loop? This article is about KIRKBY, attempting to put some kind of perspective on the plans/propaganda spurted out from the club/Tesco/Knowsley MBC/et al and has nothing to do with the Loop site.

Some people have to wake up and face the fact that Everton are not getting this stadum for free off Tesco, and it will not be an Old Trafford/Emirates, not even a Stadium of Light. It’ll be a bigger, bluer JJB/Richo Arena. Was it not Keith Wyness who said it’s bring in an extra £10M a season - is that all FFS?!? It will not neccessarily guarantee success!!

For those people knocking this article and the work done by KEOIC (a group of volunteers don’t forget - and no I am not one of them!), just be very careful what you wish for.

A certain group of fans across Stanley Park wished for investors a few years back. They got it, they welcomed it with open arms. Now look at them.... Once Everton move to Kirkby, there’ll be no going back...
David Thompson
46   Posted 31/01/2008 at 14:54:09

Report abuse

Peter Roberts....

A couple of points. Staying at Goodison is an option. The £80M the club have to spend on Kirkby coulbd be spent on redevelopment at Goodison.

In reference to the Majeski Stadium, the Transport Assessment by SDG includes a section on Reading. Current car use there is 71%, although there is a projection that says if they expand the capapcity, that will reduce significantly - I assume using the same ’carrot and stick’ measures proposed for Kirkby. Here’s the section from the report, which I hope pastes OK.

Reading FC Spectator Travel Behaviour
7.62 The existing mode share for supporters travelling to Madjeski Stadium is presented in
Table 7.6 below. The mode share was ascertained from car park counts, bus
occupancy counts and face to face surveys. Reading Football Club is currently
applying for planning permission to increase their existing capacity of 24,500 seats to
36,000 seats. The projected mode share for spectators travelling to their increased
capacity stadium is also presented in Table 7.6.
TABLE 7.6 EXISTING AND FUTURE MODE SHARE FOR MADJESKI STADIUM
(READING FC)
Mode Existing Mode Share Future Mode Share Change
Car ? on site parking 25% 12% -13%
Car ? off site parking 29% 15% -14%
Car ? on street
parking
17%
11% -6%
Cycle 2% 2% 0%
Walk 4% 4% 0%
Other 2% 2% 0%
Shuttle Bus 13% 33% +20%
Local Bus 4% 10% +6%
Bus Clubs 4% 10% +6%
Total 100% 100%
Source: Madjeski Stadium Expansion, Transport Assessment, January 2007, Over Arup Partners Ltd
7.63 Interestingly, this table shows the Club is forecasting a significant decrease in car
travel and a significant increase in bus travel. Bus and coach travel will also play a
significant role in transporting spectators to Everton?s new stadium.
7.64 Similar to existing travel patterns to Goodison Park, most existing trips to Madjeski
Stadium are car based. However, also similar to the proposed mode split for Kirkby,
the upgraded Madjeski stadium includes a reduction in car trips and 12% increase in
bus trips.
7.65 The transport strategies for Southampton and Reading FCs are both based around
increasing bus and coach travel. These are they key public transport modes proposed
for the new Everton Stadium.
7.66 By constructing a new coach and bus park and providing reliable and convenient
public transport options and improved cycle and walking facilities the use of non-car
modes to travel to the stadium will occur. Further, car use will be discouraged by
managing and controlling the amount of parking at the stadium and on the surrounding
streets.
Chris James
47   Posted 31/01/2008 at 15:22:59

Report abuse

Lee, I know you said you gave up reading it half way down, but you obviously didn’t read the first half very carefully either.

The retrun journey by train, taking into account worst case assumptions would extend to 2hrs 25 mins from the current 55 mins. So way more than 35 mins.

I remember going to watch us at Stoke in the FA Cup a few years ago. There were only 20,000 there, at another groudn built on a trading estate. We sat int he car for an hour to get off the car park.

Kirkby will be traffic chaos. I didn’t need this article to tell me that. It’s common sense. I saw the planning info published by the coucnil had a section where it compared the traffic management required to being similar to that at the Reebok. Just ask anyone if going there is an enjoyable experience.

Watching football is supposed to be an enjoyable experience. If simply getting there and getting home is made difficult then large numbers will simply not go. Sure, some Better Blues would go if we played anywhere, but the predicted new hordes of spectators the club are relying on to finance the groudn won’t turn up if they can’t drive there and can’t park nearby.
Brian Waring
48   Posted 31/01/2008 at 14:51:24

Report abuse

Neil pearse, if there was more yes voter?s like you, the divide between fans would probalby not be as bad as it is now.
david keily
49   Posted 31/01/2008 at 16:34:41

Report abuse

The reaction by some to this piece (a piece that amounts to holding up a non-too flattering mirror to the Steers Davies Gleave Transport Assessment) is quite funny. They?ve been squeeling for a more rigorous critique of Kirkby - now they are begining to be furnished with said critique they complain it doesn?t come with a sure-fire plan B.

Hilarious.

Gavin Ramejkis
50   Posted 31/01/2008 at 18:02:01

Report abuse

I’ve got a worry, as the RS have just managed to refinance their £300m or so deal with RBS and that other bank giving them a £30m per year interest payment has anyone thought that our costs could easily be one third of that at £100m which given the same rates would be an interest payment of £10m per year the exact same amount that KW says the new stadium would make available for DM - you couldn’t make this up if you tried. Given the current finance markets globally this loan could easily prove too big a burden if the club doesn’t continue to qualify for Europe each season.
Stuart Downey
51   Posted 31/01/2008 at 17:55:23

Report abuse

Ok, I only read trains and buses, I must admit it did seem a bit tedious. For example, your names of stations/season ticket holders. Catchment area of those 17 stations named = 3620 season ticket holders?

Are you having a laugh? Firstly, I know you are KEIOC but the ormskirk line does go beyond Maghull, hense it’s name, Town Green and Ormskirk are on that line too.

also, for example, in the whole of Maghull and Lydiate, you estimate 241 season ticket holders out of a population close to 85000 get the train to the match. I think I see more people in the Great Mogul/ platform than that before hand.

Also, your estimating all these times on a generic basis, many fans travel early, go the pub, meet up with friends, place a bet, get some food, etc etc. Matches are at all sorts of different times these days (and all sorts of different days). Your argument, although I understand why you have obviously gone for worst case scenario, has not influenced me at all in my decision as a YES voter.

This club needs to move, I, Me, Personally, believe this move is a good thing. COYB
Terry Maddock
52   Posted 31/01/2008 at 17:13:12

Report abuse

So basically..give or take a couple of minutes, Kirkby train station is the same distance from the ground as Kirkdale is now.!
Obviously a greater frequency of trains thru Kirkdale as it is an interchange..
But its obviously twice as close as Sandhills..where the footy bus is in operation.., How many buses? about 8 I believe..

Over a 1000 car parking spaces within 10 minutes of the ground..
How many do we have now?

And of course" CRUSH LOADED"..its simply a term used by the rail companies to descibe a train filled comfortably to capacity..not some sort of Hillsborough on wheels.

And does anybody know anyone who cycles to the match...

Are all the people in all the pubs on county road locals?...or do a few thousand go for a drink afterwards....

One more point,Kirkby is also an interchange station..of course we like to think that only scousers are going to the game..but some will of course be going north..

Im not saying its ideal..it would be must better about 200 yards fom my house..with a great pub with topless playboy bunnies behind the bar next door..
But you cant have everything..

I think it will mean that the lucky ones who can walk up and get a few bevvies will now have to drive or bus it or get the train..
an increase of an hour on the day..

Paint it black..but it will all be blue
David Thompson
53   Posted 31/01/2008 at 19:03:15

Report abuse

Stuart Downey...

Those are not the fogures of KEIOC or the people who wrote the article.

THEY ARE DIRECTLY LIFTED FROM THE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT!

You think they’re ridiculous? Well, welcome aboard.

Now try reading the rest of it, and see how much is pure bollocks.

Does that influence you now?

alex pat
54   Posted 31/01/2008 at 19:42:38

Report abuse

Well. it seems the No’s still don’t get it..
If the board had had the balls not to give us the vote we would stil be moving to Kirkby and we could do nothing about it.
It doesn’t mean we’d ave to like it, but at least we would have had clarity and could move on. We would also then not be arguing about where to move too, but instead we’d ALL be putting pressure on the club to ensure we have the best possible stadium/transport/matchday experience etc.. In fact I propose that KEIOC et al and the Yes voters form an alliance on the principle of NIl Satis Nisi Optimuim for the Kirkby stadium. This may well then get any perceived problems both in/out of the ground and proposed solutions listened too.. Be positive and not negative and we’ll be heard, continue to be negative and the club will just steamroll their proposals through.. The bottom line is finance everywhere you look nowadays, that is why however much you go on about how bad you think Kirkby will be, the club and its possible investors oly see pounds/shillings & pence.. Lets make sure they spend them wisely on Kirkby..
Tony Williams
55   Posted 31/01/2008 at 20:36:29

Report abuse

Very well thought out and structured piece but my main question would be...what is the point?

I don’t mean that in a arrogant, degrading kind of way, I mean it sincerely.

The vote has been cast, for better or for worse, an outcome was decided, so what good does picking holes in the proposed move to Kirkby do anyone?

I think it is safe to say that the board does not read this site, or even care for our views so I don’t understand the need to continually try and show everybody the potential pitfalls in this project.

The vote will not be taken again and no matter how angry or disillusuined posters are it will not make a difference to that fact, even if some Yes voters are swayed and allie themselves with the No voters, it still won’t change the outcome of the vote.

I am all for debates and arguments but I just don’t see what good can come of continually bashing Kirkby, all that happens is that the two sides of the debate go backwards and forwards until it is aggressive and personal and the Editors close the subject.
Tony Williams
56   Posted 31/01/2008 at 20:46:02

Report abuse

Lammy, no offence but the way you word your post would seem to go against your claim to have been going for 40 years, I could be wrong and quite often am but something tells me a 40+ fella does not type the word "av" and if your "offski" then so be it.
Karl Masters
57   Posted 31/01/2008 at 21:00:11

Report abuse

I have always been against Kirkby due to the poor stadium design and the transport issues it will create.

Since the Vote all that has come forth like this only served to underline my opinion,

If we can’t move to a better location, then we should be looking to do waht most other clubs have done and re-develop what we have at Goodison. All those people who cry we have no money and it can’t be done, just look at Villa Park, just look at St James Park, look at Old Trafoord. The footprint is not perfect, but with the school in Bullens Rd about to close and LCC on public record that they would help extend the footprint, maybe we would be better spending the £80-100m quoted by Wyness ( and it will end up being more if we go to Kirkby ) on re-developing Goodison.

And yes, we’ll have to borrow it in stages from the Bank, just like the Clubs above and countless others have. The increased revenue will help pay it back - just like at the clubs listed above. That’s how the world works isn’t it. If we stay at Goodison we know the transport infrastructure will work, go to Kirkby and it looks like a nightmare.
Les Anderson
58   Posted 31/01/2008 at 21:11:39

Report abuse

I work for one of SDG’s competitors and a quick look through the TA and it looks soundish in principle, calcs etc.. (from what i saw though they haven’t included people being dropped and picked up after the game a popular option for many at goodision already).

BUT I think they are over estimating Evertonians tolerance to wait/queue to get home and are more likely wont bother going or choose games. (As the replys above show).

It would be interesting to see what the attendence below 55k is when the transport provision levels out to fans expectations of queuing.

Working on things like this, the developer (tesco) goes in with low offer of transport improvements (the bare minimumto save money). the council and its consultants will then try to prove its not realistic and ask for more improvements and investment before granting permission. So whats above is not set in stone, securing funding for the kirkby line extension and letting EFC fans to use the new retail car spaces would help (is the equilvant of 100 hours a year (25 home games) of none-shopping time really worth not allowing use espcially with so many night games and £6-10 per car)



"Soapbox time" -When it comes to transport in this country we’ve always waited for a problem we know about to appear first instead of trying to prevent it happening.

Expect improvement after (and if) Everton move in as fans don’t turn up as expected and the locals kick up a fuss. Transport is always treated as an afterthought and developers/councils will try to spend the minimum no matter what transport pro’s tell them.
Ed Fitzgerald
59   Posted 31/01/2008 at 21:28:29

Report abuse

Tony

Let suppose you are correct and the vote is a true reflection of evertonians views regarding the ground move (I dont really believe it is, but that is to do with criteria of the vote and it is not the main thrust of my argument here) then thats still 41% who are going to be pretty pissed off. In light of what has been revealed since about the ground move and the related problems e.g. transport problems day time images of (stadium and escalating costs ) it is hardly likely to fill supporters with confidence, including those who voted yes. Your contention seems to be Tony that we should all shut up and get behind the Kirkby move like good little boys and girls, just like Cuddly Uncle Bill wants us to. Problem is Tony when lots of people feel they have been duped they are likely to protest particularly when they feel what they are being sold/told is based on half truths and spin. When this happens in a Country it can lead to any of the following revolution,overthrow of governments, reduction in free speech and general unrest. The manifesto of Destination Kirkby can be best described as economical with the truth and at worst a tissue of lies. I am reminded of the advert for ronseal or something of that ilk "it does what it says on the tin" not a marketing line that could be applied to the destination Kirkby. Viva La Revolution - As fanciful as you may consider about the Red Necks plan to buy their own club at least they are not passively accepting their lot.
Andrew Brophy
60   Posted 31/01/2008 at 22:04:53

Report abuse

Les - be interesting to see what capacity below 55,000 we’d be ALLOWED to have. 15,000 empty seats each game perhaps, or build a 40,000 capacity stadium. Now either of those would be a nightmare given all that has been said so far by the project partners.

Haven’t read the TA and we’ve only been quoted extracts, but if the rest is half as complex and potentially controversial then I cannot see any way that the whole project will not be "called in" by the government. If nothing else that will mean at least several month’s delay. So no spades in the ground for some time yet.

I do honestly doubt that these full scale plans would have got a yes vote. And I am not convinced yet that the project will go ahead, however much people may talk of a "done deal".

The financing also remains far too much of a "grey area". Not as much of one as across the park, but still a big concern.

Ground share anyone? (Only joking).

David Thompson
61   Posted 31/01/2008 at 22:31:19

Report abuse

Les, thanks for your clear assessment - a good post. You mention that the figures look ’soundish, in principle’. Can you comment on the interpretation in the above lead article?

Are the facts & figures, as presented, consistent with the Transport Plan as you read it?

I think your comments regarding Evertonians willingness to queue are right on the money. The problem is that the stadium move is supposed to generate 15,000 new fans, and thereby generate new money. If the fans don’t turn up, then the whole point of the move is lost, and it will take a long time, and a continued run of success to get them back, also bearing in mind that transport related costs such Park & Ride and special buses are to be built into ticket costs.

You rightly say that transport can be improved later, but one of the bigger issues is the queuing before you get to the transport - something that will be inherently designed into the stadium, and therefore not quite so easily remedied.
Tony Williams
62   Posted 31/01/2008 at 22:52:38

Report abuse

Ed, I never said and never will say that the vote is a true reflection on all the fans, who knows it could go either way.

However, as I mentioned in my seceond paragraph, I wasn’t trying to have a go but I am trying to work out why someone would go to that much trouble to eneter an article when there is no end outcome other than the usual dance between posters with different views.

I applaud the fact that people are really looking into it but I don’t see how picking up on every possible failing and bringing it to our attention does any good.

You say that when lots of people feel they have been duped they will protest, and I say I agree however it seems to be an internet protest and one with no outcome.

All praise to KEOIC but their actual protest did not help the cause as the numbers were so low, I don’t know where I am going with this post now but again I cannot see what beneficial outcome can come from people continually picking the project apart.

And before anyone says it again that I am a sheep of Billy Bullshitter etc etc, I am not I make my own decisions and stand by them
David Thompson
63   Posted 31/01/2008 at 23:09:57

Report abuse

Tony,

I’m assuming your in favour of Kirkby - forgive if I’ve got that wrong.

I wonder if the detail in the article above made you wonder whether this is the right thing for Everton. Reading the posts above, it’s clear that it has raised concerns for some people, in favour and against, that they never knew existed.

As a no voter, I think that every little piece that shows up the Kirkby Project for what it is, is worthwhile. Eventually, I hope, there will be a goundswell of opinion against it, and I guess that’s what KEIOC think too.

I want everyone who is against it to make their feelings known, particularly if they have changed their mind since they voted. Write to your MP, write to the Club, write to Knowsley Council. Don’[ be passive - you can stop this in it’s tracks.

The minutes of a meeting of one of the KMBC Committee’s posted on their website this week stated that the project would be in severe difficulty if it was called in for a Public Inquiry. I urge everyone to make this happen. The time is now.
Tony Williams
64   Posted 31/01/2008 at 23:19:56

Report abuse

David, I am not entirely in favour of Kirkby per se but I was a yes voter and I have explained my reasons several times on this and other forums in hat I don’t believe Goodison can be redeveloped, although I wish it could, I don’t believe the bullshit coming out of Bradley’s mouth, he is a slimey gobshite who shit his kecks when the reality of Everton leaving Liverpool finally kicked in and I don’t believe that the "Loop" is financially viable and I believe the traffic situation there would be just as bad if not worse.

No matter where we move to there will be a problem with accessibility and there will be people not happy about many aspects.

Yes the article made me think but as a whole, Kirkby looks to be the most viable option out there and God forbid it may be the only financially viable option so trying to disrail the project will not do Everton FC any good at all.

We are fans, we are supposedly loyal and we are sentimental fools but unfortunately we are also fickle which is not a good combination but it seems that some fans want what is best for them, not the club. They don’t want to move out of Liverpool and I know there are many fans who are pissed off because it will affect their pre-match routine etc etc.

In a perfect world we would stay within Liverpool with a beautiful new stadium in Stanley Park, the Redshite would be bankrupt and we build on their site but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world so we have to move along to the next option that seems the best and until something viable comes along, it seems that we are stuck with Kirkby.
Ed Fitzgerald
65   Posted 31/01/2008 at 23:16:44

Report abuse

Tony



You are obviously a fair minded person reading both the content and tone of your post. My issue is with the club whose attitude you accurately describe in your earlier post as unconcerned about supporters views now they have been given their mandate. It seems to me that now the vote (I wont get started on it!) has gone in their favour, no dissent or difficult questions will be tolerated. This is regardless of its origins ( e.g. KEIOC) you only need to read about Kenwrights arrogant treatment of Trevor Skempton at the AGM for confirmation of their contempt. The government are likely to call in this plan for further scrutiny so I suspect that the many supporters who post on this site and in other forums are trying to keep the debate alive. People who voted yes are likely to gain from this rucus becuase the the protests, complaints etc are at the very least likely to improve transport and facilities at Kirkby. At the end of the day the supporters are the club, we are not Man U (a global branded club) to ignore the genuine fears and passion of your local core support is crazy and short sighted.
Tony Williams
66   Posted 31/01/2008 at 23:44:40

Report abuse

Totally agree Ed and I have said before that and I still think that the "Vote" was a disgusting idea but a great way for Kenwright to take the pressure off himself and the board, as he always had the get out of Jail free card with the old, "Hey you voted for it"

Even though I certainly disagree with their tactics and their following silence after the event, I can still see that at this moment in time the Kirkby deal looks the, shall we say, lesser of all Evils and I won’t even start on the Esclusivity agreement, even that one and the stupid "No plan B" speech makes my blood boil.
Les Anderson
67   Posted 01/02/2008 at 08:49:16

Report abuse

Dave, I must admit I gave up on the above article and scanned through the actual TA itself. I don’t think theres any smoke or mirrors in the TA.

I would argue that their assumptions for EFC fans to queue after a match is not realistic enough and for a stadium next to a motorway only 45% car drivers is not realistic whatever the restrictions.

Such methods while used in other parts of the country are not established yet in merseyside as we don’t suffer congestion compared to other parts, so it could take years for locals to get used to them, LFC and EFC will be the first major developments in M’side to operate such. IMHO LFC will be more of a nightmare than EFC, it could be them really losing out.

I think 55%-60% for car drivers is more realisitic figure with another 5% being dropped off by friends/family. The other 40%-35% could be done by Public Trans/walk/cycle.
The hard thing will be the cultural change for fans of getting to the game after years of established habits.
Chris James
68   Posted 01/02/2008 at 09:38:56

Report abuse

Tony, you say ’but it seems that some fans want what is best for them, not the club.’

But the move is only best for the club if they get the increased attendances that they are expecting.

However, if the club make it so awkward and expensive to get to the new ground that they actually see no increase in gates - or worse, a decrease - then the whole object of the exercise is lost.

Given that we rarely sell out Goodison then it makes me wonder why the club think that we will suddenly have a massive increase in capacity with a new ground? I know some other teams (eg Sunderland and Arsenal) saw big increases in gates when they moved but they had very different histories than us. In Sunderland’s case they moved from a low capacity ramshackle ground to new one at a time when they were briefly riding high in the league. In Arsenal’s case they could have sold Highbury out several times over and needed increased capacity.

The idea that us simply building a more modern stadium (it doesn’t matter where) will AUTOMATICALLY increase revenues seems simple minded to me, and yet that seems to be exactly the club’s view.
Chris James
69   Posted 01/02/2008 at 09:53:40

Report abuse

Oops, that should have read ’it makes me wonder why the club think that we will suddenly have a massive increase in attendance with a new ground’ rather than capacity!

We will obviously have more capacity - the question is, will we fill it?
Chris Briddon
70   Posted 01/02/2008 at 10:33:18

Report abuse

I gave up reading the article after the complaint about queuing for trains with no cover - and being exposed to the elements - Oh my goodness what a horror - how will supporters cope if they occasionally get wet & cold that’s never happened before has it!

Has anybody ever been to Wembley - You have to queue for 3 times as long as you’re suggesting to get on the tube trains and they have no cover or anything.

Oh and as for the comment of where are you 20 minutes after a game, well usually sat in a car park trying to get out and be stuck in a huge queue of traffic on my way back to the M56.

Now if they had a park & ride or train service it would at least spread the volume out and not create quite so much traffic chaos for people getting away from the ground as there is at any other stadium.

The travel plan is an issue, but one that can be sorted out with a bit of thought and planning. It certainly isn’t a reason for not moving grounds - because if you take the rose-tinted specs of a while, the travel arrangements to get away from Goodison are a bit crap too.

I live about 80 miles away - and have to drive to the game because getting from the city centre to the ground at present is a challenge. At least with a station 10 minutes walk away and regular trains it gives me another option - and whats a 20 minute queue between friends eh?

At pride park, they keep the bars in the stadium open after the game & encourage supporters to stay around for a while and have a drink rather than all leave the ground at the same time.

The problems you mention are by no means insumountable and to blow a move & the future of the club on such technicalities would be a big missed opportunity if you ask me.
Jay Campbell
71   Posted 01/02/2008 at 12:09:48

Report abuse

Simple solution to all of this: Kenwright out!!!
Steve Templeton
72   Posted 01/02/2008 at 13:13:03

Report abuse

I’ll be honest - I’m a reluctant yes voter.

I voted yes firstly on the grounds that we need a new stadium to remain competitive in the Premiership and secondly because I did not believe that LCC could deliver a realistic alternative to Kirkby.

I admire KEIOC for their passion for the club and for their tenacity in fighting Kirkby and exploring other alternative within the city boundaires. That said however I’m with Lee Spargo on this article, I tried to read it with an open mind but gave up half way through because it was so poisoned with anti-kirkby sentiment.

One thought occurred to me though when reading the bit about the 4000 fans queing for trains after the match, don’t you think that some fans will do what they have always done and go for a pint after the match to let the traffic die down? I’m not saying that everything will work like clockwork but this doom and gloom scenario of women and children getting frostbite in the middle of winter is going over the top and quite frankly it does nothing to support KEIOC’s case.
Marko Poutiainen
73   Posted 01/02/2008 at 16:26:29

Report abuse

Chris,

the idea of building this stadium is to increase attendance. Do you honestly think people would rather come to Kirkby to stand in the rain for an hour or more after the match? Do you really think stuff like that will help the club increase the attendance by 10,000 or more (keeping in mind a lot of people will stop going, or start to pick and choose rather than buy a season ticket)?

The "I’m such a big blue that I’ll go anywhere" is completely moot. If only the hardcore go there will be around 25,000 - 30,000 watching the matches. Would you be happy with that?
Sonny Phillips
74   Posted 01/02/2008 at 16:13:54

Report abuse

Niel Pearse - As a well known pro Kirkby on this site (have to move to increase revenues, we are not rich, no other financially viable alternative)

Thank you Niel for NOT using the dreaded word ?deliverable?, since Wyness used this about 30 times in a two day period around the time of the vote, many ?yes? voters have used it ad nauseum in an attempt to sound clever. The fella himself used it in a really patronising way as an attempt to distance himself, as a CEO from the ?plebs? (us fools who pay his wages).
The whole thing stinks. I cannot believe so many good blues have been suckered by this self serving businessman and his not very clever ?business speak?.
This man has NO interest at whatsoever in the future of our club. If he gets us to move his CV looks great, he will get out and further his career elsewhere, if we don?t go he has an excuse to up and leave for his next ?project?.
I will go there if the club does, I just hope they balls the whole thing up like almost everything else they do and we end up ?stuck? at Goodison.
IT CAN BE IMPROVED UPON but...
I love going there and most home and away fans I know think its a cracking experience, regardless of their obstructed view, crap food/ale walk into town etc (thank god Moyes has addressed the on pitch stuff).
All these new corporate fans are going to love Kirkby aren?t they? After all, if BB is to be believed, they only stay away from GP due to the lack of facilities. Fair weather fans??
Here?s stupid old me thinking that we were a FOOTBALL club...it seems we are a ?networking? opportunity for suits!!
Bugger off Wyness you toad.
Lee Spargo
75   Posted 01/02/2008 at 19:00:47

Report abuse

Gavin, thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the debate. If you have a disabled badge that allows you to park around Goodison, then my guess would be that the same will apply at Kirkby. So you will have no problem then, will you?
Dave Wilson
76   Posted 02/02/2008 at 06:49:39

Report abuse

Nice one Lee, I’m sure you’ve put Gavins mind at rest now
Jimmy Fearns
77   Posted 05/02/2008 at 20:43:07

Report abuse

COME ON YOU QUEUES

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
Menu
OK

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.