The club could regularly boast attendances over 50,000 with obstructed views included. It was Everton. It was the club, it was who we were. Today, in the time of Sky, we see the club placed with the also ran?s of the Premier League. I hear as well that we must have a ground to match our status (as also rans?) We aren?t being set up to succeed but we are being set up for fodder for the big four.
Kirkby is a mediocre example for a mediocre club. I have said it before and I will say it until I am blue in the face: Location, Location Location; if you build a stadium that truly inspires then you build a dream. You build a stadium where the best want to play, fear to play. Not behind Tesco?s on a Saturday afternoon, who the fuck would want to play there? Does it showcase a great team or a great piece of business by Tesco?
Whenever I go past EFC, I look at it with pride. It means something to my life. If I went past Stanley Park or Walton Hall Park with an EFC on it I would view it the same way. Put it behind Tesco and it means nothing and never will.
So why is that? I am sure there is a multitude of social academics who can tell me why pride in a place engenders such passion. For me it?s a symbol of all that is good with the club, its supporters and the football we play. I associate with it because we have always wanted to play our football with class and style, it sounds snobbish but you know, when something you believe in passionately is threatened you can either roll over and do nothing or stand up and say something.
Yep.. maybe I should get a life, maybe football has changed to just watching a game on a park and nobody cares where it is. But Just remember, Sky will not be around forever. The days of huge money will end, that?s an economic certainty. In management terms its called Risk. I for one wonder what will happen without a David Moyes, without the Sky money or even worse, if, god forbid we fell out of the Premier League. AND we are in Kirkby. Dark days indeed. "Never happen," I hear you say.
One can bemoan all one wants the club and our fellow supporters, the quality of the services, the area. But the fact remains, it's our club. We have a right to a voice and a right to be heard. If you believe that we should not dispute any injustice then all I can say to you is why are you an Evertonian?
We all want success; we all want to see a team playing for honours; we all want to belong. Right now we do belong to a great club with a great tradition. You can only sell the family silver once. Our silver is not in the trophy cabinet, its in the hearts of those fans who treasure the club for all it is. That?s a fan. That?s Everton. That?s why we are special, that?s why we believe the best team, the best ground, the best experience should be worth working out the difficult solutions. Not in taking the only options given and deluding ourselves that all will be ok.
It's called Passion; Passion has a colour. It's Royal Blue. It lives in Goodison Park. If Goodison Park needs rebuilding, rebuild. If it needs a new home, build one. But always remember to take the bricks, the steel, the hearts and the passion with you for without it all you have is a soulless place in Kirkby.
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 24/03/2008 at 15:19:29
It may not be objective in fact its highly subjective and spiritual but isnt that what being an Evertonian is all about.
Its important that any new development reaches the Hearts and minds of ALL Evertonians and clearly KIrkby doesnt even come close.
2 Posted 24/03/2008 at 15:52:14
Too many fans are ignoring Nil Satis Nisi Optimum. They are agreeing that we are only supposed to finish 5th.. Well thats not how my Pops brought me up regards Everton.. I am religiously Evertonian, GP the cathedral. We have a god given right to more than just the premier league scrap of 5th place. Now I am aware that the game has totally changed and that it is becoming more and more difficult to break the stangle hold of the top 3 clubs, but moving to Kirkby is not going to turn us into league champions. Priority number one for the board should be to find investors, produce a decent 5 year business plan, and not saddle the club with huge debts and a wildly unpopular ground move.
3 Posted 24/03/2008 at 16:38:43
4 Posted 24/03/2008 at 17:12:29
Everton Football club has won 15 "Major" honours.. but none for 12 years,,
Bob Paisley won 19 major honours alone,
Alex Ferguson.. Including his time at Aberdeen has won 27 major honours..
SO IF YOU KNOW YOUR HISTORY...
No matter how much you love the club..if any team has agod given right..it aint us..
We are moving in the right direction..and its gonna take a while...
We really all need a big dose of realism..5th is astounding..4th would be be a near miracle... and winning something in the next 3 years ..possible..but not a right.
5 Posted 24/03/2008 at 17:40:52
When Davey Moyes started with us 6 years ago, one of the first things he said was that he had to raise expectations.
On the pitch he has by and large succeeded. In fact, if there is still some work to be done, you sometimes wonder if he has to convince himself to believe we can get in that Top 3 or 4 and STAY THERE, rather than every now and then. I say that based on tactics and teams selected in recent games against the current Top 4. Remember, in October, he dropped talisman Lee Carsley for the Derby and put a defender, Jagielka in his place, a plan that did not work although forgotten since due to the actions of the referee.
Where some serious raising of expectations needs to be done is in the Boardroom.
Relocating the Club to a liitle town in suburban Merseyside in a B - grade stadium served by inadequate transport facilities is like telling BK telling Moyes that he’d settle for a mid table finish in the Championship every season.
6 Posted 24/03/2008 at 17:48:15
Liverpool cant sell their soul..they never had one to sell.
7 Posted 24/03/2008 at 17:51:56
8 Posted 24/03/2008 at 17:46:46
We can?t leave ... It?ll break my heart. And I know I won?t be alone in that feeling...
9 Posted 24/03/2008 at 18:35:46
10 Posted 24/03/2008 at 19:33:15
11 Posted 24/03/2008 at 19:48:48
12 Posted 24/03/2008 at 19:52:08
I?m not stupid, I can see the movement in the right direction we are going on pitch, from relegation fodder to Uefa Cup status, but that shouldn't be our all or our aim. Whenever that royal blue jersey goes on, a victory is all we should be playing for. I grew up listening to these types of things, yet these days, supporters seem happy to settle for less. That?s not Everton. And I don?t believe that's what Christine was alluding to in her article.
I don?t understand your cornflake metaphor either. I normally skip breakfast!
13 Posted 24/03/2008 at 20:04:14
The only conspiracy was that we were not given the full facts about other options and 60 % allowed themselves to be duped but they still voted for a move to Kirkby from Goodison.
Tom, there is absolutely no way our club can afford £80 - £100 million. We’re skint. If that is what Kirkby is costing us then there’s nothing to worry about because we’re not going anywhere.
14 Posted 24/03/2008 at 20:19:06
15 Posted 24/03/2008 at 20:15:43
16 Posted 24/03/2008 at 20:27:39
17 Posted 24/03/2008 at 21:13:11
18 Posted 24/03/2008 at 21:32:57
19 Posted 24/03/2008 at 22:39:35
20 Posted 24/03/2008 at 22:48:17
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
21 Posted 24/03/2008 at 23:33:15
22 Posted 24/03/2008 at 23:51:17
23 Posted 25/03/2008 at 00:04:01
24 Posted 25/03/2008 at 00:26:51
GP has a similar sized footprint to Old Trafford. That's surely a big enough site in Liverpool to redevelop in??
25 Posted 25/03/2008 at 00:36:18
26 Posted 25/03/2008 at 01:06:17
27 Posted 25/03/2008 at 01:16:44
28 Posted 25/03/2008 at 01:28:49
Memories are there, but in my 31 years following Everton, there has also been some awfull football. The Red Marketing machines new stadium will simply make us look a laughing stock.
Before you start I do also hate the Sky sports, Hoodies, Nike obsessed culture, Shit Music, shit films, Fast Food, Reality TV, and lack of culture world we all live in today. But Everton do need a new stadium. I took my new GF to Goodsion this year, she has only been to one football match before at Turf Moor, she said both grounds seem the same - THAT?S why a big historic team like Everton need a new home.
29 Posted 25/03/2008 at 01:38:30
Anyone who says they would prefer to stay at Goodison (especially when expressed as well as Christine), deserves absolute respect, and is obviously entitled to continue fighting their cause. You are not helping your cause one iota by insinuating with no evidence that the ballot was fraudulent. The Yes vote was signficantly (not marginally) higher than the No vote, and verified as such by a respected independent party. Fact.
30 Posted 25/03/2008 at 02:10:43
what good authority informed you that EFC would only provide up to 20% of the total cost??????
It wasnt the same authority that said "The cheque will be in the bank in the morning" was it?
People GET REAL.
Kirkby is not FREE.
It is not the deal of the Century,in fact its the "Crime of the Century".
We wont even own the land it is being built on.
TESCO has already said "It is NOT providing funds to Everton"
It is estimated by one of the board to cost EFC between 80-100 million at last count.
Goodison is not about to fall down or be closed down.
There may be restricted views and less than ideal number of corporate boxes but if you read various independent experts it would cost less than 20 million to fix this and increase capacity at GP and for 80 million spent progressively so GP wont have to close down WE WOULD HAVE A 55000 CAPACITY WORLD CLASS STADIUM.
THE VOTE WAS RIGGED - it was said it was KIrkby or nowhere.
That was a blatant lie.Sainsbury were already proposing a joint development in Walton Hall Park.
A number of highly respected Architects/Engineers with experience of stadium development have said that GP can be extended/improved.
Despite what "The Illusionist" and Fat (bonus) Keith have said THERE ARE REAL ALTERNATIVES TO KIRKBY!
The "Yes" camp talk about 60% voting for the move but in fact it was only 2300 people and I believe more than that number of loyal Evertonians did not get the chance to vote either through ineligibility or not receiving their voting papers.
Since more information has come out I believe (purely subjectively) that a lot more people would now vote NO than when the vote was taken.
At a very minimum I believe support to be totally divided on this issue and that together with a board that has no experience or competence in managing a project of this nature leads me to believe that EFC would be best served by re examining the options.
NSNO not a "Sheep shack" in Kirkby>
31 Posted 25/03/2008 at 03:49:43
One thing is clear, the mandate the board got from selective supporters was clear and a yes vote, in the absence of any alternative was duly forthcoming. But thats like heading into a general election and saying that only members (not all supporters) of the labour party can vote, not only that, you need to follow a three line whip too. The absense of a representative set of supporters would always defeat the mandate cliche. The premise was incorrect no matter how well it was conducted.
So, the facts are we are guessing as to the true reason, the true cost. But we do know what we don;t want. Thats a plastic fantastic in Kirkby. Nobody realy voted for that, they voted for change and improvement. Kirkby was the only option given back then, its not the only option now. I hope the board have the courage to say lets do a due diligence on all the options, make them independent and release the findings of an independent body for us to make that call. Perhaps then we will have a team, a stadium and a board we can be proud of as well as our supporters.
32 Posted 25/03/2008 at 05:39:35
As for all the revenue streams so b’lov’d of the yes men(apt term that).
It was all concerts and conferences and this time next year we’ll all be millionaires rodders, When was the last time there was a multi million pop concert at a NW stadium. If there was one that slipped my mind I think the millions went to the STAR...NOT THE VENUE
Planning your multi national business function?? Kirkby or Old Trafford....uum let me think
Apart from the Manchester location as the IN place, The only reason anybody would go to Old Trafford was to bask in the reflected Glory as seen by the more easily impressed.
We KNOW we’re good, but hardly anybody else does, YET.
It’s all about the team, thats where the glory comes from.
If we had had, or would get, 10yrs of success like the top 3. All and sundry would be queueing up to get in the crap tent in the Bullens car park.
It’s all about peception think how the tide has turn in the better papers in the last 6mths and multiply it by 20 over 10 years.
May the sub prime and all that shit upon the Kirkby Dome from a great height.
33 Posted 25/03/2008 at 08:14:18
Since terms of credit will partially be offered against future revenue streams (i.e. the ability to pay back) then if anything credit for Kirkby will be cheaper than credit for Goodison, because the future revenues for Kirkby will certainly be higher (higher prices, corporate boxes yada yada yada).
Since it is also probable that the net borrowings for redeveloping Goodison will be higher than for Kirkby (no offsetting sale of Goodison, no new naming rights etc.), the credit crisis almost certainly means that Kirkby becomes more attractive to Everton.
Finally, again, the fact that we won’t own the land at Kirkby is really neither here nor there. Most modern companies do not own the land their factories are built on, or the offices their employees work in (or even the furniture they sit on). Last time I looked Everton was a football club, not a property speculator. All that matters is the terms of the lease.
34 Posted 25/03/2008 at 08:58:29
Vote rigged? Stadium cost EFC £150 million... these are false statements!!! EFC only pay for the Stadium interior ? all other building costs carried by Tesco and Barr. Tesco is the best offer on the table, sadly its the only offer so EFC had to decide what to do and they consulted the fans and were given the green light to move forward. We, myself included all had a choice Yes or No and we voted YES! Respect the result, EFC will continue just with another abode.
Direct your anger at LCC, they have chosen RS over EFC so we have moved down the road to a place that wanted us. History is past, time to move forward. Footy has changed, either change with it or be left behind. I would have more respect for NO voters and KEIOC if you came up with Plan B, but all you do is attack EFC and Tesco plans; to me that is wasted energy. Basically your have no solid options hence the attacks and X-files bullshit. The longer it goes the more extreme you become, next you will all be saying EFC have to pay £200m for Kirkby. COYB no matter you play,
35 Posted 25/03/2008 at 10:18:43
I was responding to your belief that we have a god given right to anything..we dont..
Supporters who are happy at the progress made under David Moyes are not settling for 3rd 4th or 5th best..we are just glad that their does seem to be light at the end of a very long tunnel...we may well have won the league 9 times..but its been 20 years now...We have fans who only have videos and stories...I recently spent a week in Portugal..and nobody knew who we were...
8 years go we were the team that always just about stayed up... a bit like Charlton or Fulham, Wigan...That was our standing in the game from about 1992 onwards (barring one season).....
Now our expectations have been lifted..buy they still need to be tempered with a healthy touch of realism...although i am one of those who dares to dream
36 Posted 25/03/2008 at 11:29:23
37 Posted 25/03/2008 at 11:20:46
So don?t feed me the BS about the fans voted a clear mandate.
Sadly your comments indicate you obviously have no concept of the history or tradition of the club as you say, the past is past. Sorry but why do you think Liverpool command such respect from media and Sky?? Because of what they have done in the past. !
Everton FC are every bit as good as them. Better.
Tradition and History are the foundations of any great side and any great club.
No solid options?? Now can we when we have no solid comparisons to make a call on and an exclusion clause that fobids any discussion with other parties.
Attacking Everton? I attacked the board on what was a poor decision based on a poor choice and then closing the door on all other options.
I work as a CEO of several companies; if I did what the board did at EFC I would be rightly condemned and shown the door. It's BAD BUSINESS. YOU NEVER CLOSE THE DOOR BECAUSE CIRCUMSTANCES ALWAYS CHANGE.
Perhaps its a generation thing where people don?t give a shit about the club, just the result on Sat / Sun / Monday at midnight.. Because that's all I seem to hear as a response from people who frankly don?t care about the club and a sense of belonging. All they want to do is ridicule those who choose to challenge.
Without those people you end up with mediocrity which I for one will never settle for, which the bulk of supporters will never settle for. It's a shame that blind faith in the board should result in the derision this forum decends into. It is neither constructive nor rational. Step back, use some common sense and realise that unless the CLUB listens to its supporters, looks at the opportunities and is trasparent in decision-making, then the only outcome is blind faith and the probability of a foul up.
That's the reality. That's what happens in real life. Good decisions are the result of long hours and looking at all options. Bad decisions are made without exploring the options.
Having been on the end of both, I know from bitter experience which is the best.
38 Posted 25/03/2008 at 11:39:47
I’m not sure I understand your points:
"Since terms of credit will partially be offered against future revenue streams (i.e. the ability to pay back) then if anything credit for Kirkby will be cheaper than credit for Goodison, because the future revenues for Kirkby will certainly be higher (higher prices, corporate boxes yada yada yada)."
Will higher prices necessarily mean higher revenue? Liverpool is still one of the poorest cities in the country. Cost and demand always had a negative correlation when I did A-level economics. Higher prices may mean smaller turnouts and consequently lower income. As far as corporate boxes, there is nothing prohibitive in providing significantly more of these at GP. For instance, the scheme I produced for GP had nearly twice as many as the Kirkby design.
"Since it is also probable that the net borrowings for redeveloping Goodison will be higher than for Kirkby (no offsetting sale of Goodison, no new naming rights etc.), the credit crisis almost certainly means that Kirkby becomes more attractive to Everton."
This is highly speculative since unlike kirkby, GP does not necessarily require 4 completely new stands immediately. Which is why redevelopment is still the most commonly chosen option by football clubs. At a minimum it can be brought upto capacity by the addition of one new stand and remodelling/re-roofing of the others. EFC can even generate their own enabling project as outlined by Trevor Skempton on land that they actually own at the Parkend to help fund the first phase. LCC planning office agrees with this in principle. Therefore, at a minimum outlay GP can actually generate the same income, not to mention offer the better convenience of the more central site, as well as continuity and preservation of heritage/tradition and matchday routines. If you take into account the increased costs of Kirkby, i.e. the nett increase above enabling funds not being met by Tesco it appears that Kirkby may be far more costly. As far as naming rights is concerned how much is this really worth? A hotel/residential development at the Parkend may release similar naming opportunities at least for part of the redeveloped stadium. Huddersfield’s stadium is on its second or third sponsor, meaning that even established stadia can have saleable naming rights. According to various reports the sale of Goodison is hardly as lucrative as you might think. In anycase, isn’t it already re-mortgaged to its full value?
39 Posted 25/03/2008 at 12:50:58
"If the new ground is indeed built I will be the fourth biggest in the league, and based on one of the best german stadia for acoustics etc...."
The proposed stadium at Kirkby is not based on Koln. How do I know? Well it says so in the Tesco planning application.
"With corporate facilities to match any in the league, hardly a poor stadium I think! If Everton are to compete at a higher level consistantly this potential money stream is essential!!"
Also untrue Colin. It says so in the Tesco planning application.
""Whilst the type and size of stadium EFC had (and still has) in mind for itself would be a considerable improvement in many ways over what it currently has, it knew that it could only afford a mid-range Premiership stadium"
Tesco Stores Ltd, November 2007"
"The Directors of
the Club recognise the need to strengthen the balance sheet in the short term have
identified opportunities to achieve this, of which the most important and potentially
valuable option is to move to a larger, more modern stadium."
The proposals for EFC at Kirkby are all in here;
I suggest before you make any more unfounded claims as you have above, you should read the many, many documents that will inform you exactly what EFC would be getting at Kirkby.
40 Posted 25/03/2008 at 13:48:44
41 Posted 25/03/2008 at 13:56:59
60pc of Evertonians did not vote to move. Does anyone know how many Evertonians there are in the world? I don’t.
No, less than 60pc of those Evertonians who particpated in the ballot voted to move. That’s quite different from saying 60pc of Evertonians voted to move.
As it stands, there’s a swing of just 2,382 Evertonian ballots leading us who knows where.
Is that really enough for us to take a leap into the unknown that is Kirkby? Is that really a mandate?
I do not for one minute think that the actual vote submission process was rigged. Nor do I believe that the ERS was in EFC’s back pocket.
I do believe - rather, I know (and the facts are out there) - that EFC carefully managed the parameters of this ballot (especially concerning who could vote) and the attendant information whilst meeting the most minimum requirements of the ERS.
Most ERS ballots stipulate that any accompanying literature should present a case for "yes" and a case for "no". However, only one of those cases was witnessed last July but as EFC was the ERS’s client on this one there was very little the overseeing body could say or do. Its only power was to ensure fair play in the counting procedure. Regarding the pre-amble it was powerless.
EFC knew it would be a tight affair and officials were very nervous about the outcome. It was proved that they had every reason to be so nervous for less than 2,400 of those Blues who voted (sic) won the day for them.
Knowing what we all know now, especially regarding costs, it would be interesting to see how many of those 2,382 would change their minds.
A fair few, I’ll bet.
42 Posted 25/03/2008 at 14:28:26
43 Posted 25/03/2008 at 14:58:58
Shareholders got additional votes. Shareholders with holdings under several names..... presumeably got more additional votes. How do I know......? I’m a shareholder. Who are the biggest shareholders?
Everton may be moving on the say so of a number of people that would scarcely fill the paddock.
Ok, I’m being a bit mischevious!!! ;)
44 Posted 25/03/2008 at 15:42:43
45 Posted 25/03/2008 at 18:04:33
The board can recover its integrity by simply stating it is open to review all other options. But history to date has shown that rather than do so it attacks and ridicules those who carry the message.
You have a choice in life, to not pay lip service to decisions that are made in your name or have the balls to say you were wrong and be man enough to listen. Of course, if your lucky enough to be right all the time then you don’t need to accept others views. But somehow I don’t have that comfort with our board of directors.
So my apologies because I dropped ino slinging abuse mode when I shouldn’t have done so. Alan Wilo thats for you.
But thenI still hold passionate views about my club. I am a stake holder as everyone who has paid money at the turnstyle is. If the concerns voiced here in this forum are truly representative of the overall body of support then the club has a duty to respect our concerns and answer them.
Everytime we start to shoot each other for holding views then we lose any basis for the club to take us seriously. This issue is far too important to let the board off the hook by pointing to the arguments and abuse and saying that those supporters don’t know what they want. Well, I do.
Honesty, Integrity, Transparancy.
Then you can put me back in the cupboard and say thank Christ she has gone.Until then, Stand up for your right to ask the questions and keep asking until answers are given. Hold those in power accountable for our club.
I don’t critisize the board for having a vision of improving Everton FC, I critisize them for their arrrogance in dismissing options and ridiculing those who would speak out in protest. That smacks not just of bad management but of a lack of integrity and respect.
I hope to goodness BK or Everton FC read this post. We are not luddites or pond life as some have suggested. We are passionate about Everton FC. We are the fan base that ensures the club lives. We are special too.
46 Posted 25/03/2008 at 19:51:12
47 Posted 25/03/2008 at 20:24:35
There are a lot of CEOs, Chairmen and women of major companies and great intellectuals that follow the beloved, but those attributes gain us nothing, for that of which you speak, is a matter of the heart, and as always, leads to clouded judgement........... But I love your post!
48 Posted 25/03/2008 at 20:35:03
"whilst hoping the 1920?s foundations were going to crumble and the ?beautiful original Archibald Leitch? brick iron and wooden seats and floors of the Bullens Road wasn?t going to fall on their heads. Still some ?sky boxes? and a new roof will sort out a stand that dates from 1928 and that away fans from lesser clubs think is a joke. Yes I do appreciate the architecture, but ok, I?m being a bit mischevious too..."
There are some who used to think the Albert dock was a pile of debris fit for infilling the dock only. There are many older stands in the world still fully operational. Close to home Anfield’s 1900’s Mainstand is still completely intact within the one that’s’ there today. At Ibrox, they did similar to what I suggest to their mainstand, and it is for the most part the best stand in the ground despite a few obstructions, with talk of replacing the other three stands which look alarmingly similar to those planned for Kirkby. The only poor views in a redeveloped Bullens Rd stand with a new tier behind the current upper tier, and a re-profiled lower tier will be those at the rear of this lower stand. The new lower tier with slightly increased rake wouldn’t continue to the back wall, but just to the second row of columns thus reducing the number of obstructed views substantially, with a new roof eradicating them completely in the extended upper stand. The result would be a completely transformed stand with history preserved, in essence a new 15-16,000 seater stand for the cost of 5-6,000 seater, less if the skybox option was adopted instead, or some hybrid thereof. The addition could be an independent structure that could be added to in the future should the Leitch stand need replacement, however this massively over-engineered structure is probably stronger than many newer variations on the double-decker theme.
49 Posted 25/03/2008 at 23:06:07
50 Posted 26/03/2008 at 00:03:01
The new stadium has loosley been based on the Schalke stadium (if that?s how you spell it) which has one of the best atmospheres in the German League. A great improvement and capacity of what we have already, at a fraction of the real cost. We have very little money to waste... we need a new stadium. We also need new players ? how else are we to do it?
We cannot afford to redevelop Goodison, which incidentally I would prefer! You need to wake up and smell the coffee! Cheers! ps: the new stadium for the dark side will cost them at least £30 mill a season in interest alone... what else can our club do to take us forward?
51 Posted 26/03/2008 at 01:37:42
What do you all think?
52 Posted 26/03/2008 at 08:55:08
The reason EFC have an exclusivity deal is because we have no money so we have to agree to the terms on offer to obtain the "free gift". Whether all parties agree to what the free gift is, location or even the sponsor is completely irrelevant thereafter as we lose the upper ground because we don't have a pot to piss in. Staying at GP, moving to the Loop are all fine options but none have a major sponsor so we fall back to the fact we have no money, no private invester and a council that has chosen LFC ahead of EFC. These are the cirumstances that lead us to Kirkby.
If you (like me) hold a very senior position in large company then you will understand that sometimes decisions are out of your control when you don't have the cash flow or capital to deliver what in a perfect world we would like. I love GP too but I?m afraid today?s business footy circles dont hold out for sentiment ? they follow P&L?s accounts, assets and projected earnings.
The argument you have against is not confined to EFC but the move away from the fans to the boardroom along with player power. Once you understand this then it all fits in (we don't have to agree!) we EFC are just trying to keep up with the Jones and I?m afraid we need to make decisions that may upset its loyal base but what is proven is the loyal base will stay around not matter what in time for EFC. COYB
53 Posted 26/03/2008 at 09:41:09
Thats fine. I could look at the substance in detail and contend that the vote was misrepresentative and should not be continued to be lauded to as the reason for the move.
The exclusitivity deal was at Tesco?s request to prevent any other bid. That's business, EFC signed off on it; that was bad business. Of this there cannot be a dispute. Somewhere in all of this there should be a "Get out of Jail" clause. So where is it?
No other sponsors? Sainsburys? Walton Hall Park? Politically a nightmare scenario for Tesco to lose to a competitor? That's a fact, not a figment of anyones imagination.
Look at the track record of the EVerton Board when it comes to investment issues. Fortess Sports Fund indeed, Kings Dock.. I am not saying its all the Board's fault as the LCC have blood on their hands in spades... Shameful is the truth.
Free gift.. exactly What is free? I would LOVE to argue this point but I can?t because NO ONE will give us the FACTS. I Can?t assess how good or bad the deal is financially because the statements from the club, BK. Wyness, press releases all appear to have different hymm sheets.
So what are we left with? Unsubstantiated emotion and the impact studies done around the Kirkby proposal. The transportaion issues, the location itself, it really doesn?t quite generate a feeling of great expectation. More of impending problems.
The fact that sometimes a Board is between a rock and a hard place is unfortunate for the Board, but I would contest that they are a maker of their own misfortune in terms of attracting investment.
I have asked on this site before just why was Walton Hall Park and Sainsbury?s buried as a possible alternative. For me it fitted the bill perfectly and allowed GP to be sold off to recover funds. But the deal was killed off before it was given an airing.
Alan, in response, I can only say that, fact or fiction, we are left to argue about where the deck chairs are being placed on the Titanic. Nothing to date has been carved in stone regarding the cost to EFC. Like most major projects I bet the overspend will be a cracker..
One is left asking the question why was a site that is obviously less attractive than WHP still being pursued? Of course it's money; of course it's power; of course it's politics. But NONE of them make it right.
54 Posted 26/03/2008 at 10:03:06
Tom Hughes may correct me on this and I certainly bow to his knowledge, but I think the only thing that whole monstrosity (c’mon it is) had to boast about was being the first ground in Britain with an escalator.
Sheff Weds had already introduced cantilever technology in the mid to late 60s (in time for the 66 World Cup?) and certainly by 1968 Man United had employed it. By 1972 Chelsea’s plans were in place for a cantilever stand which was eventually finished in 1974 (the one which houses the dressing rooms today).
In the middle of all that, though we erected that crazy structure which is absolutely riddled with ob-views.
Ironically, I wrote several times to PJ in his very early months asking him to address the Goodison Road side of the ground (I was being slightly mischievous because I hated him from the off and I was trying to expose how skint he was as opposed to the mega-bucks image he was trying to pass off...but I was also hoping he might just say "yeah, let’s bulldoze it"). The last thing I expected was for him to start muttering about moving ground.
I eventually met him and he said that Everton had missed a trick with the new single tier Park End stand which was under construction before he took over. He categorically said that he would have insisted on a two-tier job (I was inclined to believe him, for once).
I told him that it was actually John Moores that had missed a trick (more like cost-cutting...as he was entering his turn-the-tap-off mode in 1970 and I’m convinced his role in the Alan Ball sale has never been fully exposed) with the construction of the Goodison Road side of the ground.
I used to work in the JM Centre in Old Hall Street and had control of the keys to the old Littlewoods archive for a number of years: there were three sets of plans (real, lay-it-out flat, eight-foot long drawings) in that room for the construction of the Goodison Road side and one of them was definitely cantilever. Another was a variation on what we have now (but not as good - so we can be thankful for small mercies, I guess).
It was always my intention to "spirit" those plans away one day...but I didn’t bank on the company being taken over almost overnight back in 2002.
We’re still paying the price today for JM’s shortsightedness / cost-cutting back in 1969.
The Park End fiasco 24 years later merely compounded the error.
55 Posted 26/03/2008 at 09:40:19
56 Posted 26/03/2008 at 11:10:24
I am not in the "business", I am just trying to show how capacity can be increased. There are a multitude of options. There might be great kudos to be gained from preserving the Leitch stands and adding to them on the Bullens Rd side. I believe you can combine tradition and modernity, some times the contrast works well, as is the case at Ibrox IMHO. That said, piece-meal additions can detract from the original so it’s not something to be done lightly. As far as the existing poor concourse facilities, the rear extension will expand these behind the existing stand. Like I say this is just one way of expanding the capacity to a point where we can truly judge our ultimate demand. It could be part of an overall scheme to preserve these two historic stands and to build something state of the art around the other 2 sides. This would make GP unique. I’m not sure about putting the balcony front on a new structure, sounds a bit pastiche to me, maybe spread it around internal bar spaces?!
57 Posted 26/03/2008 at 11:32:04
You are getting your German stadia mixed up. The Kirkby proposal is nothing like Shalke?s stadium which is completely covered. The comparison has been made to Koln?s stadium (Rhein-Energie-stadion) in that it is the simplest possible two tiered symetrical structure. The Kirkby design has far more open corner sections though. What we are being offered probably isn?t as good as the Stadium of Light.
58 Posted 26/03/2008 at 11:42:48
It?s a shame you didn?t get them drawings. I have got copies of Littlewood?s drawings for a completely redeveloped GP (1980). I visited the architectural department and met some of the structural people who had been involved (I was amazed they were still on manual drawing boards in the late 90s). Basically the plan was to take the mainstand /top balcony around all four sides.
I also put some ideas together for completely transforming the Goodison Rd side, and they are shown on the KEIOC site in the "alternative sites" section I think, with drawings etc. I agree, it is an eyesore in its current format, but it is not beyond redemption IMO. For a start it has scale, it is imposing. The majority of the obstructions can be eradicated by re-roofing this side. The two front columns cast the largest shadows. An exec tier hung beneath the top balcony would solve the issue of good and plentiful exec provision, and would make the rearmost rows redundant reducing obstructions there also. Continuing the mainstand down to pitch level would get rid of the shallow enclosure, and would make-up some of the capacity loss from the rear of that stand. Result a transformed stand that will not look dated or ad-libed.
59 Posted 26/03/2008 at 13:01:37
Meant to say that I also spoke to people involved with the Mainstand. They apparently had a simple brief to deliver as many seats as possible on that side. There was little regard for quality, but it has a massive capacity for the footprint. It was never ahead of it?s time, although its pure scale must have had a real wow factor at the time. I can remember visiting teams walking out on the pitch in my youth for their usual pre-match walkabout and standing in awe looking at the stand. There was nothing like it till Chelsea built their superior effort, but the rest of Stamford Bridge was a mess at the time. A cantilevered roof would have made a significant difference, and you are correct that Sheff Weds and Old Trafford pre-date 1966.
60 Posted 26/03/2008 at 13:07:12
That’s reminded me of something PJ said (Grand National "Monday" 1997 - IRA bomb hoaxed re-run day).
He said he’d been looking at redeveloping the Main Stand to run it right from the back to the pitch side. But he added that the pillars were the problem. Frankly, he then completely lost me as he continued to jabber-on about the impossibility (cost wise and engineering wise) of slicing the Top Balcony off!
I waited for him to draw breath (because I was frankly lost by his continuing incoherent stream of consciousness that lasted about 10 minutes) and wanted to press him about what he actually meant.
But as he came to a pause, he issued a grand flourish stating (verbatim: "Anyway, we’re moving, anyway, we’ve got no choice and the plans are clear and I’ll hold a vote if you like but we will move so the rest is merely contexture (sic)."
I think he meant conjecture!
But what the hell could he have been on about?
Although Dunford later admitted that there never were any plans, it was clear that PJ must have had prelim discussions at least about reconfiguring GP.
P.S. Yes, I saw those manual boards at least as late as December 98!!
61 Posted 27/03/2008 at 08:58:05
62 Posted 02/04/2008 at 13:25:30
I’m not really sure what he was going on about, although I remember him making similar statements at the time.....
"He said he?d been looking at redeveloping the Main Stand to run it right from the back to the pitch side. But he added that the pillars were the problem. Frankly, he then completely lost me as he continued to jabber-on about the impossibility (cost wise and engineering wise) of slicing the Top Balcony off!"
There have been studies for remodelling the mainstand side, and indeed carrying it around all four sides. The Littlewoods drawings I have date from 1980. They are an initial study only and are flawed in that sightlines for the proposed new Bullens simply would not work, and the proposed structures would all possess the same problems as the existing mainstand side. Certainly the removal of a whole tier could be problematic and expensive (especially if keeping the lower tier in operation), but I’m not sure why it would be necessary to get rid of this tier in the first place. While the Top Balcony is steeper than would be allowed nowadays, it is an existing structure and therefore for the time being safe from legislation. These old drawings also showed the mainstand continued down to the pitch level, which would have meant the loss of the enclosure and which again matches his ponderings to you
"Anyway, we?re moving, anyway, we?ve got no choice and the plans are clear and I?ll hold a vote if you like but we will move so the rest is merely contexture (sic).But what the hell could he have been on about? Although Dunford later admitted that there never were any plans, it was clear that PJ must have had prelim discussions at least about reconfiguring GP."
Hard to say now, but I think similar to the current episode PJ had only looked at some preliminary, possibly outdated redevelopment studies like the ones I have, and preferred the relative hassle-free blank canvas of an out-of-town site. That might explain his referral to the problem of the pillars since the front columns are still evident in the Littlewoods scheme as well as the second row of columns to support the top tier. It probably all goes to reaffirm Dunford’s admission that no real feasibility studies had been conducted. The parallels with the current process are only too obvious. One seemingly less problematic solution was found or offered and the blinkers went on, end of. Similarly pre-vote KW stated categorically that all options had been fully exhausted yet the grossly biased feasibility study for redeveloping GP was dated October of last year, several months after his initial assertion. This suggests the rather back to front process of making the problem fit the solution.
63 Posted 02/04/2008 at 16:16:03
That’s actually clarified a few things for me, believe it or not. I’m more convinced now than ever of two things:
* that he had been looking at both those 1980 drawings and the putative 1988 study conducted by Marsh (the famous Sunday Mail "underground car park" pipe dream) and was mentally merging the best bits of both a-la-carte style...hence his weird ramblings
* the "blank canvas", path of least resistance (ha!), sod-it, let’s just move long-term ambition was really pushed by Buckley Finch until PJ finally accepted that was the most profitable way forward; I’m convinced that, ironically, PJ initially favoured the cheapskate "stick a bit on here, bolt a bit on there" approach to redeveloping GP in order to get the capacity (and revenue streams) raised asap in order to cash-in on the "new dynasty" post our 1995 cup win (he definitely did favour sticking a 2nd tier on the PE almost immediately as he admitted he was so impressed with the take-up of season ticket seats at that end (he had no appreciation that it was more to do with a cultural and spiritual homecoming for loads of old-skoolers).
Sidenote: I almost got John Moores Jr to admit to me one day (after he’d categorically told me that he and the rest of them regretted the day he’d sold out to PJ) that they were guilty, at least in part, of planting the seed of a ground move in potential buyers’ heads. But after his anti-PJ rant to me he suddenly came-to and realised he was talking to a minion and, like those drawings I never got, that was another golden moment gone forever.
One way or another, the Moores are at the root of all our problems today - IMO - and ironically the emphasis on behind the scenes corporate hospitality on the Goodison Road side (at the expense of spectator convenience), although it was then ahead of its time in 1969, is the very thing that has stymied us for over a decade.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to Column articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.