The amended documents submitted by Tesco (not Everton) to KMBC include, amongst other things, the level of funding required by Everton, as well as indicating the sources from which they hope to get it.
"Effectively free". Anyone remember that statement before the vote last year.
"LIttle or no debt". Anyone?
The document prepared for Tesco by DTZ states, in summary:
4.1 Reflecting the current financial position of EFC against the realistic costs of building a new mid- level quality stadium the club have made clear that the funding from enabling development is an integral assumption to the successful funding of a new stadium for EFC.
4.2 As set out within the sections above the key headline figures are; Total cost of the new stadium circa £130m EFC contribution circa £78m Shortfall circa £52m
The shortfall is later described as a 'cross subsidy from the enabling development' - interesting that it's the stadium which is the enabling development, not the retail park, which is entirely different to the picture previously painted, and is described in more detail in the document.
My main point however, is how Everton will get the £78M. The document descibes this as follows:
2.6. A number of funding options are currently being pursued and will comprise a combination of: Long term bank debt Syndicated debt Private Equity Funding Securitisation of future income streams Securitisation of new stadium naming rights Realisation of existing assets
All of the above, except the last one, are loans of one form or another. We already have 'securitisation' of our season ticket income through Bear Sterns. How is the cost of this new borrowing to be funded, and at the same time, how much will left over for development of the team?
Any delay to the project, which is intended to have Everton in place by 2010/11 season, would see an increase in the stadium cost of £6M.
What do we get for £78M? Point 5.1 gives us a clear definition..."the current financial position of EFC against the realistic costs of building a new mid- level quality stadium...."
Let me just repeat that. "Mid-level qualtiy"
The board at Everton are planning to mortgage and borrow to the hilt, for a mid-level stadium.
How many lies were good Evertonians told last year? It is now time for Everton to call a halt to the whole sorry episode. Wyness must resign.
If you voted Yes to Kirkby, and now see that you were lied to, make your feelings known to the club. Make your feelings known to the compliant local press. Make your feelings known to fellow Evertonians. Together, we can stop this madness.
Nil satis.....yeah, right.
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 16/04/2008 at 14:54:17
I can envisage the playing staff albeit the better players jumping ship. The manager not far behind... nobody, I repeat nobody has come forward with viable options they are willing to fund anyother way. David, honestly if we don't borrow the money were DOES it come from?
Would you be willing to borrow £78M and redevelop Goodison? Is that the long term solution... i dont know! But am really pissed off having Blue noses arguing and fighting over this... Wish it had never got to the drawing board.
2 Posted 16/04/2008 at 15:09:40
Everyone?s great at saying "this is shit"; no-one is any good at saying "Do this instead ? and here is how..."
3 Posted 16/04/2008 at 15:07:06
" 6.10 A further point that is of relevance to any debate on the options that might be available to the Club to fund a new stadium, is the willingness and abilities of the Club?s directors to sell some or all of their interests in the Club in order to attract an investor who or which might have the ability in financial terms to fund a new stadium in its entirety or at the very least fund the shortfall that exists in the context of this proposals. As is pointed out in greater detail in the financial statement document 26), this is not an option as the current directors have no intention of selling any of their interests in the Club."
I have always maintained that the reason KIrkby was being pushed so hard was that if you get 100 million mortgage it enables an awful lot of cracks to be papered over!
Now will BKites start to believe the man is a compulsive charlatan.
Does this mean that despite his consistent claims, Bill Kenwright wasn?t searching for investment "24/7" after all?
Evertonians, you decide.
4 Posted 16/04/2008 at 15:08:52
Sounds like theres more than £78mill that needs to be explained... but then again why do that when you can employ a piece of subterfuge!
5 Posted 16/04/2008 at 15:14:15
"Long term bank debt, Syndicated debt, Private Equity Funding, Securitisation of future income streams, Securitisation of new stadium naming rights, Realisation of existing assets"
Looks like we?ll not be buying any players in the next 30 years!!!!!!!!
6 Posted 16/04/2008 at 15:18:04
And the clown had the cheek to threaten defamation... I think we know now who would've won that tussle!
7 Posted 16/04/2008 at 15:16:27
8 Posted 16/04/2008 at 15:27:14
Why is it that Kenwright and Wyness are not being held accountable for their lies and half-truths? The whole thing is a corporate conspiracy with the aim to make money! Sadly that profit will come from our club.
9 Posted 16/04/2008 at 15:28:47
Stated a long time ago that we where being told a pack of lies.
We where pilloried for it by some people.
To the yes voters. You swallowed the whole scam, hook line and sinker.
Promises of a WORLD CLASS ARENA !
And untold riches to buy players to go in our FREE stadium seduced the lot of you.
If ? This goes ahead, we will be saddled with more debt and in footballing terms. Will be outcasts, on the peripheries of a city we used to call our home.
Hope your?e proud of yourselves.
The statement issued says it all.
10 Posted 16/04/2008 at 15:58:21
We are not ran efficiently on a commercial basis and no benefit will come to our club or its supporters if we move to Kirkby.
11 Posted 16/04/2008 at 16:27:43
12 Posted 16/04/2008 at 17:03:20
We continue at Goodison.
Thankfully because how many clubs have benefitted from moving stadium?
All the extra money will just go to players and agents anyway... but not take us a greater level as a direct consequence.
13 Posted 16/04/2008 at 17:43:11
We would have been playing in it now, If only Kenwright hadn’t dithered and changed his mind.
A mind change that could now possibly cost us 3 times that amount
14 Posted 16/04/2008 at 18:23:54
Let's hope it costs him too.
15 Posted 16/04/2008 at 18:38:53
Where are all of BK’s fans now? You know, the ones that were arguing the toss that he’s a blue, he know’s what he’s doing, he’s no egotistical megalomaniac etc etc.
It’s there in blue and white. All you yes voters have had your pants taken down.
Still for the move? As Delia Smith once said, ’Let’s be ’avin yer’...
16 Posted 16/04/2008 at 18:46:46
17 Posted 16/04/2008 at 18:50:35
And those who fell for it all HLS are too embarrassed to come forward. Can’t blame em, really.
But this is now the third time this has happened.
Since 1996 we’ve wasted three years on "doomed project 1" aka the Hamperman Dome; four years on "doomed project 2" aka the King’s Dock (great idea, never stood a chance, which was blindingly obvious from the off) and now more years on "doomed project 3" aka "the Deal of the Century".
Three votes. Three "yes" outcomes delivered via three heavily spun campaigns. And 12 utterly wasted years.
If we’d just bitten the bullet in 1996 and started - piece by piece - to redevelop Goodison.
We really deserve better.
18 Posted 16/04/2008 at 19:03:41
As your post implies this cost will rise by £6m every year after 2010-11 so we had better get a move on eh!
19 Posted 16/04/2008 at 19:44:22
The words pear shaped are starting to appear and if it does go through god forbid, can you imagine what we will get?
Hope you are happy Man of many names and co.
20 Posted 16/04/2008 at 19:44:31
21 Posted 16/04/2008 at 19:51:27
22 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:00:39
They are compulsive liars and you trust them with saddling us with debt, whilst destroying our heritage in the process to move us to a basic souless flatback stadium miles from a thriving city which we wont fill anyway.
23 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:01:03
24 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:13:21
David, fyi, private equity funding is NOT a loan, but an investment in the company on a risk and reward basis. If the company doesn’t perform, it doesn’t pay!
Dave Randles, the reason why "yes" voters have not come on in their droves to contradict this article is because it will be like pissing in the wind - all you get back is abuse, aimed at them or BK/KW (highly constructive, not!)
So I ask anyone who is a "no" voter, may we see your detailed business plan, costing, and suggestion as to the location of the stadium (within the city boundary, of course!), and how this will be done without debt. Please?
25 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:14:54
There is a very real threat we would end up with a ground and crowd looking like Boro.
26 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:24:25
27 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:23:31
Meanwhile we wait for all the naysayers to present a fundable alternative.
28 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:27:21
What most are saying is why not spend it on gradually redeveloping Goodison.
It has been proven it can be done.
29 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:34:35
30 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:38:47
31 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:46:28
Kings Dock, now how I dream, perfect to have a really good go at catching them up, but the fence was not ringed.
32 Posted 16/04/2008 at 18:55:53
BK and Kenwright (IMO) will not resign over this. Yeah, maybe the Yes voters were fed what they wanted to hear, but the Yes voters ?won? shall we say.
If you want to stay at Goodison with a new financial backer, then hey, I can?t wait to have to pay for all my cup tickets on direct debit, paying around a grand for my season ticket and maybe a £7.50 meal deal for a shitty pie and a drink and still be in debt paying to polish a turd.
Listen up, guys an gals, I reckon the Kirkby option will go ahead even if some gran decides she wants to knock down Leahy?s house or somebody decides there?s not enough bus stops in Kirkby.
33 Posted 16/04/2008 at 21:05:54
34 Posted 16/04/2008 at 21:12:35
Wooo St James Park looks well doesn?t it? er no, 2 sides look good but they can?t develope the others.
Any other examples of a well developed old fashioned ground with no houses/pubs/schools/roads right next door?
Don?t give me Ewood Park because Ii reckon that ground makes the Kirkby option look like fuckin Wembley.
35 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:41:39
People who are for some reason shocked at the revelation that we will have to borrow some more money for the stadium, how else do you think Arsenal funded theirs? And to a much larger extent than we will. Admittedly seeing these figures are worrying in black and white but it is mere reality of football stadia building, the RS are gonna borrow big time for their stadium (if it ever goes ahead)....
For the people who think Kenwright and Wyness are in this ?for their own benefit? or ?looking after number one?.... for what reason? Kenwright will not make any money by messing it up - Wyness is an employee of Everton and will not gain anything if this goes pear-shaped... in fact I am sure he will receive nice juicy bonuses if it does come off and Everton?s financial situation improves through the increased revenue streams the stadium will bring... why would he not want this to succeed or put the club in dire financial straits making sure it does happen?....
Sure, a new investor would certainly help with the shortfall we may have to borrow to make up... but why would someone pump their money in now? I think we will find renewed interest in the club if/when this stadium happens.... no chance beforehand...
36 Posted 16/04/2008 at 20:49:42
Guess what the bastards (dixit John Lennon) mean by their supposed "Globalisation" slogan and current world food shortage which we are all supposed to accept as docile chicks.
Its about time the true freedom loving people of England lead the way START SAYING NO, starting with our priviledged local scouse Evertonian brothers ? stand up and be counted not to let this Killer Blow to what is the essence and soul of Everton Football Club go through.
BTW Forgive the passion of an overseas supporter feeling as strongly as the NO side on this issue. Objectively IMHO I believe rebuilding of the Grand Old Lady makes sense economy and financial wise as well as the history and awe factor a plus not to be easily discarded unless we get Emirates /Arse High-End Quality.
37 Posted 16/04/2008 at 21:46:02
Kirkby will not be free it will cost £130 million plus.
Tesco will not be making ANY financial contribution.
It WILL NOT be a truly world class stadium.
The infrastructure (especially transport) in Kirkby will not support 55,000 people every couple of weeks.
The population of Kirkby is around 40,000.
Liverpool?s inner city population is about 500,000.
The Land is not FREE it will be leased
The stadium costs will be broadly similar wherever the stadium is built.
GP and the land it is on is owned by EFC and is estimated to have a sale value of £15 million.
GP has a bigger footprint than St James Park and with surrounding area a bigger footprint than the Emirates.
Where would anyone with an ounce of economic sense expect to get more income from facilities in Liverpool or Kirkby?
Where do all the amateur economists with their predictions that KIrkby will generate all this extra money get their figures from?
Which would put the club in more debt GP at £15 million or Kirkby at £130 million and rising.
BTW Tom Hughes recently did an excellent piece highlighting the cost of redeveloping GP and if you?re reading Tom it would help if you could post it again.
38 Posted 16/04/2008 at 22:09:56
I am from Cheshire 38 miles away, a supporter since '68 regular attender since '83 and I really don't think scousers appreciate how we are viewed by the rest of the country. We are most definitely the ?other? team in Liverpool, why do we want to be associated with that name? Do you not think it would be better to put some space between the clubs and allow us to become our own team without moving that far? I mean its only 4 miles ? we are still in Merseyside.
And dont you tell me that I'm not from the city, I don't know. There is no truer blue than me. Some of the best moments of my life have been supporting this club but how succesful have we been in the last 45 years compared to the shite. We need to move to break free from them.
39 Posted 16/04/2008 at 22:21:32
40 Posted 16/04/2008 at 22:39:41
Moyes, again, mentions a redeveloped Goodison at the end....maybe this is becoming more of a posibility?..
41 Posted 16/04/2008 at 22:34:51
All the ?shock horror? about borrowing money, securitising assets is just naive. We are a business FFS! Businesses borrow money against future revenue streams. Nothing unusual in that.
All the outrage about a ?mid level stadium? is a bit weird from those who are also outraged that we will (apparently) be going so horredeously into debt. Would you prefer that we built a ?top level stadium? and went into at least twice as much debt? You can?t have it both ways.
Sorry to disappoint you all, but I voted Yes and would do so again. Around £50M for a new stadium bringing us more money to buy more players, sure beats rotting in Goodison and going into slow but inexorable decline.
42 Posted 16/04/2008 at 21:43:47
Look at MK Dons, how things have changed for them and how far have did their move.
We are so close to being the top team in Liverpool,but way behind in terms sponsorship income,transfer budget,squad depth.etc. Spurs, Portsmouth, Villa, Man City and Newcastle will be spending in the summer if we dont match them then next season we could be a top 10 team. So let's get behind the club and help move this sleeping giant on to next level, If that means moving out then so be it.Peace
43 Posted 16/04/2008 at 22:49:08
44 Posted 16/04/2008 at 22:33:33
as someone who is neither confused nor ignorant, I would reply:
Kirkby will not cost Everton £130m - read the document again please
I don?t care if Tesco contribute nothing, as long as someone contributes the £52m
A truly world class stadium will cost truly world class money (WHICH WE DON?T HAVE!)
You assume that the infrastructure will remain as is - do you not think bus and train companies will think about the number of customers they will have desperate to use their services, and provide more of them?
The population of Kirkby is 40,000 - so what? It?s not in a different country, it?s 5 miles down the road from Goodison, and if you come in from the North of Liverpool, it?s closer!
The population of Liverpool?s inner city is 500,000 - as above
The lease runs, I believe, for some 200 years (if I remember correctly). Given that we have been at Goodison for less than 120 years, I think covering the next 2 centuries is sufficient
The stadium costs might be broadly similar wherever it is built (I assume you have detailed costings to validate your claim?), but who is going to contribute £52m to the cost if it is put elsewhere (and where would that be, given that the document referred to in the main article made it clear there is nowhere else suitable?)
The sale value of GP being £15m is only relevant if we move, because it?s only if we move that we can realise this asset
GP might have a bigger footprint than St James Park or the Emirates, but what does that mean? That we can upgrade Goodison to a 60,000 seater stadium? Who pays for this then? Where would the extra 25,000 people park their cars??
The banks who will lend us the money to fund Everton?s contribution will only do so if they receive a proper business plan showing that we will be able to pay it back - I assume they qualify as having an ounce of economic sense? So too whoever constructs Everton?s business plan in the first place. May I ask what economic qualifications you have (since you?re doubting theirs)?
As for amateur economits, see above
Everton?s debt on moving to Kirkby would not be £130m - again, please read the document. We would have to come up with £78m, towards this we would have the revenue Barry mentioned earlier. If we can get a new stadium for circa £30m, is this not "effectively free"?
As for the cost of redeveloping GP you mention, I reserve judgment until I read the piece from Tom Hughes
I will repeat this for the benefit of those who have never submitted a detailed business plan, costing and location proposal for your alternative - please do, and you might win over some "yes" voters. Alternatively, by constantly pointing out the negatives, and calling those who disagree "confused or ignorant" (or worse), you are going to remain in the same minority (albeit vocal!) that you were in when we had the vote (remember that?)
45 Posted 16/04/2008 at 22:59:38
46 Posted 16/04/2008 at 22:58:21
No other known option comes close to being as attractive as this on a financial basis. I absolutely appreciate that Kirkby is not the greatest location, and we would no doubt all like a better quality stadium (I only wish we could afford it). But it is now hard to deny that on a purely financial basis this is clearly superior to any other known or even conceivable option.
It is something of an own goal on the part of No voters to highight these latest numbers. They actually provide a very strong financial case for Kirkby.
47 Posted 16/04/2008 at 22:59:14
50,000 plus attendances and companys throwing money at us for private boxes at a place we can’t get to, please do me a favour.
48 Posted 16/04/2008 at 23:22:09
49 Posted 16/04/2008 at 23:54:56
50 Posted 16/04/2008 at 23:41:24
I cannot believe that even now there are some folks on here who believe this to be a good deal. I don’t know if it is possible to retrieve some of the garbage that was first spun to Evertonians when the stadium was first mooted. If only it was !
51 Posted 17/04/2008 at 00:12:07
52 Posted 17/04/2008 at 00:15:37
But, frankly, if you don’t believe already that you get more money from a brand new stadium with better facilities, than there is nothing I can say to convince you.
53 Posted 17/04/2008 at 00:28:53
The obvious and simplistic question therefore would be;
What impact would the interest payments of your borrowed £50m have on the increased revunue streams (around £10m per year according to Wyness) and how would that effect the monies made available to the manager?
A couple of other points;
The £78m mentioned in the above document was the projected price in Q3 of 2007, we are now in Q2 of 2008 and counting. It also fails to take into account Everton’s contribution to the infrastructure/logistics as set out in the planning application.
Finally, reading the revised documents, Tesco make it abundantly clear that the margins for ’enabling’ the stadium are very tight and that if the proposed retail development is reduced, as Knowsley Council has been advised is necessary, then in the words of Tesco;
"?If the Council were to require the applicant to reduce the amount and type of retailing being proposed, the stadium would become unviable, and unless an alternative source of funding could be identified and secured to meet the short fall (£52m), the stadium development would not proceed.?
54 Posted 17/04/2008 at 01:14:40
55 Posted 17/04/2008 at 01:01:58
an eloquent reply but very flawed nonetheless.
1.Where is the shortfall of 52 million coming from?
To my mind that comes to a cost of 130 million which the financial wizards that put the proposal together say they dont have and wont dilute their shareholding to get (Any reminders of Kings Dock?).
I did not make the claim it would be a "World class stadium" Wyness did in his propaganda.
I dont presume that the infrastructure will remain as it is but the transport proposals put forward have already been critisised as inadequate and unworkable and if you think brewers and restauranteurs will build facilities for a once a fortnight jamboree you must be on the wrong business plan.
My point on the population is that Liverpool?s infrastructure has been built to accomodate 500,000 residents plus millions of tourists whereas Kirkby has been built around 40,000 residents and few if any tourists.
I make the point about GP allegedly being worth 15 million because IMO it has a much greater value than 15 million as an existing stadium and from all accounts the brownfield land in Kirkby will cost a substantial amount to prepare as it is in a flood plain.
As you question my ability in economic matters I will inform you that I am a qualified accountant with a degree in economics and have therefore prepared and overseen thousands of business plans few of which have matched Wyness sleight of hand with numbers.
How many times have the numbers changed and how long have we been in an exclusivity period?
Any decent accountant would have had his costings together within a month of any scheme being considered and would not therefore claim something was effectively FREE when it is going to cost EFC 130 million and rising.
A few articles have been posted here showing how GP could be redeveloped with first class facilities to hold 55,000 plus for far less than the cost of Kirkby.
I really dont see how you have arrived at a net cost of 30 million for Kirkby.
Are you related to Wyness?
56 Posted 17/04/2008 at 06:57:06
GP may be worth more than £15m as an existing stadium, but the only way we get the money from it is by selling it, and unless someone wants to buy it as a football stadium, then that’s not its realisable value.
Final point, and to reiterate what I said earlier, and in previous posts last year, what all the "no" voters are saying about the future is conjecture, but you all insist on representing it as fact. In the absence of your own detailed business plan, costings and alternative location for any sort of stadium (world class, mid-level, whatever), then it’s merely your opinion. Please don’t presume that people in favour of the move (the majority, I will remind you) are all stupid, gullible people who will swallow everything we’re told. If that were the case, we’d believe you lot!
57 Posted 17/04/2008 at 07:16:45
So we are going to borrow money. I am not "fluffy" about this., but realistic. No borrowing, no new or improved stadium. The questions then become: how much are we going to borrow, what can we afford, and what do we get?
My claim: getting a brand new stadium, mid level or otherwise, by borrowing less than £50M is about as good as you can imagine it getting. The Arse and the RS are borrowing in the £200M area for their new builds. Given that we cannot afford very much, financially this is about as prudent and sensible as it gets. Not very exciting perhaps, but then we are not very rich.
Really now it is over to you to explain to a poor deluded Yes voter like myself how else we are going to get a new stadium without having to borrow substantially more than £50M?
58 Posted 17/04/2008 at 07:44:23
59 Posted 17/04/2008 at 08:37:49
People need to get this into their head’s that this is not OUR club anymore it’s Kenwright’s and his cronies.
The only way to get the message through is don’t go the match anymore and don’t give them your money.
60 Posted 17/04/2008 at 08:42:17
I wholeheartedly agree that the discussion about funding and borrowing is not that relevant as indeed only a wealthy benefactor or perhaps the sale of all of our players and playing with the u-17?s next year will provide us with enough money.
To answer your question about getting a brand new stadium with enough money without having to borrow more than £50 M: If we would opt to redevelop Goodison and start with just the Park End, adding corporate facilities and about 7000 extra seats (or rebuilding it from scratch which seems to be the more intelligent option, I?m no architect but it does make sense to me to relocate the pitch a few yards to realign it with the main stand and make room for the Gwladys to expand in the future, like some plans advise), we would only have to pay for that one stand just for now. And the Park End site, or at least the lower section, shouldn?t take too long to be rebuild so the loss of capacity is very limited. With beginning with the Park End which is the biggest win capacity-wise, capacity will not fall dramastically low when we rebuild the other stands.
I?m no expert on building costs either, but even with the high inflation on construction work and all I?m sure it is possible to do for £25 M. I read on some site you had to count with approx. £1000 a seat for redeveloping a stadium. If these costs double for one reason or another we?re still within my budget.
Of course that?s not a completely shiny new stadium. But with 7000 added seats (unobstructed, with better facilities and all, although the current Park End of course already has no obstructed views) we?d surely make an extra £3 M each season. And that is a prudent calculation, I could also say "7000 times 25 matches (19 league, 3 cup, 3 europe) times £33 is £5,8 M add a million for the corporate places and some money as spin offs and you got £7M a season", but we?re not guaranteed to have 25 matches each season, not every match will be a sell-out and not all fans will pay full price. I think £3 M is very realistic and if anything a bit low. We could go on a few years without starting construction on other stands to see if the added capacity is used and to save money/pay off part of the loan used for the rebuild of the Park end. This will provide the money to rebuild the next stand. And so on and so on. This would give us the financial room to never borrow more than £50 M at any time for redeveloping the stadium.
I am a believer!
61 Posted 17/04/2008 at 08:36:56
In general, I am surprised that you seem rather attached to having balance sheet assets such as owned grounds and training facilities and catering and shops and so on. I know we have been around this one before together. I am not a trained accountant, but as a business person I operate on the assumption that ’cash is king’.
Wouldn’t it be better to have income / cash rather than dormant assets, and to use that income / cash to build new facilities and buy more players? I mean, would you prefer to have say £20M tied up in GP, or use it to buy Kim Kallstrom and Aaron Lennon?
62 Posted 17/04/2008 at 08:44:14
63 Posted 17/04/2008 at 08:49:20
The question is whether borrowing a not outlandish some of money to build Kirkby (or any new stadium) is better for the club in the long-term than borrowing a bit less to rebuild GP. I happen to believe that the additional revenues from "a brand new shiny" stadium will make this worthwhile. It certainly is most unlikely to bankrupt the club unless the playing side collapses and we end up in the Championship (and then, as they say, we are all fucked anyway).
But reasonable people can disagree about this cost / benefit calculation, and, since it is about what will happen in the future, there is no final way for either side to prove they are right. What is certainly the case is that financially the Kirkby proposal is modest and prudent. Those of you who are afraid to borrow even this amount can of course choose to stay in GP.
You cannot have it both ways. If you want a ’world class stadium in the city’, you will have to borrow one hell of a lot more. If you don’t want to borrow much, you can have Kirkby or GP. These are the three choices. As usual, the risk / return relationship holds. if you borrow more and take more risk, you have a greater potential upside. What some No voters seem to want is a fantastic stadium in the city without borrowing or taking substantial risks. Absent a major financial benefactor, there just ain’t no such animal.
64 Posted 17/04/2008 at 09:42:01
It should be noted that the bright shiny new home has not prevented the club going into free-fall on and off the field. A new stadium is thus no guarantee of riches to come. But what?s the alternative if Goodison is no longer fit for purpose?
65 Posted 17/04/2008 at 09:57:49
The new stadium however you rate it, will literally ?wipe the floor? in terms of facilities, safety, and comfort when you compare it to GP as it stands. MID-LEVEL is what you get for the price we are willing to pay. WTF do you guys expect, the equivilent of the new Wembley stadium!!!
Welecome to the real world, Everton will get what they pay for, which will still be a first class stadium.
66 Posted 17/04/2008 at 10:43:23
A couple of questions.
1), is there any particular reason why DTZ have not included the money from the sale of goodison in their report, yet you are happy to stump up this imaginary 15million in your report?
2) Are you adocating doing ?a bolter? on the mortgage on goodison?
3) DTZ have stated in their report that the cost ?TO EVERTON? will be 130mill. Is ther any particular reason why you are contradicting this? If you read the report its quite clear that the retail space to pay for the ?overhead? of 50 odd mill from an enabling development is nothing to do with Tesco and will be a retail park within the stadium and therefore Evertons boundary. Therefore is a bottom line cost to everton which is hardly secured.
3) what exactly is this bellfield development money you are talking about and how do you know we have it...was a planning application not refused?
4) What exactly is the bottom line difference between and PFI that will no doubt require an annual pay out and a loan? and why did you make the distinction between the two?
5) Considering the answers you may of may not have given to the above questions, can you now give the financial forecast of were we get 78mill for the development, and how this affects us on the pitch (i?ll assume we will still have the 10mill increase on transfer money that wyness promised)...
P.S I?ve let you off on the overhead of 52 mill, as I fear your answer will be as wishy washy as the proposal!
67 Posted 17/04/2008 at 11:38:01
68 Posted 17/04/2008 at 12:21:45
These points from the Statement show how shaky this all looks, thin ice or what. Oh, and there?s that deliverability word at the end.
2.7. ?The Club have indicated that additional borrowing beyond this point (£78m) could expose the Club to an unsustainable level of debt, resulting in an unviable proposition.
3.5. ?This opportunity clearly exists at this moment in time and as such could be lost for a variety of business and commercial reasons. The Tesco team have estimated that a delay of one year will increase the cost of the project by circa £15m and the stadium cost by circa £6m excluding fit out. The impact of new legislation or guidance on stadia design could further increase costs and reduce capacity.
4.12 ?The appraisal currently shows a return of 10.25% which DTZ would suggest is below the level that would normally be considered as acceptable for a scheme of this profile and risk level. This profit position highlights that the current appraisal is not generating value over and above that which is required to ensure a viable and deliverable scheme ?
I really fear that this could make our club?s future less stable not more stable.
69 Posted 17/04/2008 at 12:08:56
If there isn’t, then some of us are just making the reasonable point that, once that £78M is offset with other disposals, naming rights etc., it means we will be borrowing less, perhaps much less, than £50M, to get a new stadium.
Which given the going price of such things seems rather a bargain. And should be swallowable by all but those who are so fainthearted that they want to either fund a new stadium out of current income (excuse me?), or to have equal or greater physical assets on the books to set against the loans (why be so conservative?).
The boot now seems to be on the other foot, with No voters seemingly saying that we cannot afford much more than a lick of new paint on the old lady. Shouldn’t we be a bit more ambitious? Nil satis and all that?
70 Posted 17/04/2008 at 12:25:06
Is that what you are saying? If so, then at least we can all now stop berating Kenwright and Wyness for not attempting to build such a stadium. Based on your own logic, it would be completely irresponsible for them to do so. We should be very thankful that the people in charge of the club are being so appropriately prudent.
If this is all true, then we can immediately now stop debating any option (world class, in the city etc.) that would involve more borrowing than Kirkby. That will all save us a lot of time! Unless a rich benefactor pops up, these options are simply financially irresponsible and unaffordable. To coin a phrase, there actually wasn’t ever any ’Option B’.
Which is what of course Yes voters like myself have been saying for the past year or so. I am glad you have now joined the fold.
What we are left with now in reality is two options which have any practicality. A low risk option which involves rebuilding Goodison. And a moderate risk option which involves building Kirkby. As I’ve said, reasonable people can disagree about these options depending on how much risk they want to take, how many supporters they think will go to Kirkby etc. etc.. But at least now we can give up debating the fantasy options of world class stadiums with low risk and low borrowing.
71 Posted 17/04/2008 at 12:31:23
72 Posted 17/04/2008 at 12:50:55
’Asset stripping’ however is an emotive and inaccurate means of describing a completely common and perfectly sensible business practice. Which is to focus on your core business mission (ours is playing football not managing a real estate portfolio or running shops), and to free up as much cash as you possibly can to plough into your football playing mission. The ’stripped assets’ enabled us to afford Yakubu! What about this is so difficult to understand?
73 Posted 17/04/2008 at 12:52:03
74 Posted 17/04/2008 at 12:41:34
A couple in my mind is 2, but counting is obviously not your strong point (2 number 3s!), so I’ll answer the 5/6 questions to the best of my ability and knowledge.
1. You’d have to ask DTZ that question, as I don’t work for them and didn’t contribute to the creation of this report. If we move, we sell Goodison Park, and we get real, non-imaginary money for it. Is that unwishy-washy enough for you?
2. Yeah, we’ll be doing a moonlight flit, don’t tell anyone! Or, sensible answer, whether we stay or we go, we still have the money owed on whatever charge there is over GP - therefore, this is not a relevant cost for such a decision, as it applies to both choices.
3. Planning permission may have been refused for now, but do you really think it will stop there? We don’t have it now, but we will when we sell it.
4. If you really need me to explain the difference between private equity funding (I assume this is what you mean by PFI?) and a loan, then I’m obviously wasting my time trying to discuss the financial pros and cons of moving to Kirkby with you.
5. Unlike the "no" voters who know with certainty what will happen in the future (maybe you should all be called "know" voters!), I have never stated that I know how this will pan out. What I have said is that those who have the knowledge about the state of the club have developed the business plan, and that banks will not lend the money unless they are convinced that they will get their money back. I think their opinion is a bit more reliable than either yours or mine.
PS if you read the document yourself, and also the initial article, you will see
"4.2 As set out within the sections above the key headline figures are; Total cost of the new stadium circa £130m EFC contribution circa £78m Shortfall circa £52m"
EFC’s contribution is envisaged to be £78m, not £130m. I’ll let you off with this though, as no doubt your eyes only read the bits you wanted to see.
I’ll let you have the last word on this in your inevitable reply, because I really can’t be bothered repeating myself ad infinitum.
75 Posted 17/04/2008 at 12:55:05
Now forget about it being Everton, how do you expect anyone in a small town to negotiate a sum near to what a club in the capital city gets. When you can show me facts and figures not estimated projections that prove this to be a great deal, believe me, not only will I concede my fears are groundless, I will also thank you for saving me from more sleepless nights as it's Everton's future that's paramount to me.
76 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:07:05
However my focus has always been on what is the best possible solution for Everton Football Club in its constrained financial circumstances. Kirkby could still be our best option even if Wyness stretched the truth way more than he should have in promoting it.
As it stands, we are in agreement that our basic choice is between Kirkby and GP. And I hope that reasonable people can now disagree without too much name calling about which, all things considered, makes the most sense for our club.
77 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:05:49
78 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:10:36
In the present climate fella perhaps you should not be wasting your time discussing the economics of anything.
Keep up the good work with the sarcasm tho, you almost made me smile and then I thought about what we No voters actually do know.
79 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:02:08
You seem to be missing an important point
1. Any money generated from naming rights will have to be borrowed first - they might call it ?securitisation? but it?s still a loan - so naming rights does not reduce the amount of borrowing, it just guarantees a future source of income to repay debt. The only thing to reduce the level of borrowing is sale of assets - i.e. the remaining equity in Goodison, Bellefield and the players.
You appear to have an ?if they build it, people will come? mentality about the revenue streams. On the Everton website, it states that new-builds attract an increase in attendance of between 15%-30% in the first season. For Everton to fill Kirkby, an increase in excess of 30% would be required. In the case of most new stadiums, the fan base is generally behind the move, but no one could argue that to be the case with Kirkby. There will be a considerable number of existing supporters who will not go, and if the proposed transport arrangements are not resolved (and seeing as there are no buses for night games, it?s hard to see how that will happen) there will be a very steep drop off after the novelty factor wears off.
So add the required borrowing to the existing debt - remember we?re losing £5M a season at present and at least £60M in debt - and you?ll find that the revenue streams don?t work. Far from generating the revenue required to build the team, Kirkby could prove to be the albatross that takes us down.
We can?t sell out one of our biggest games of the season tonight, against Chelsea. Why on earth does anyone think that up to 15,000 new fans would come to Kirkby?
What?s the alternative? In my opinion, a stage by stage redevelopment of Goodison, as/when it can be afforded. The methods for this have been rehearsed repeated elsewhere. However, whether that is the right option or not does not improve the case for Kirkby. We have had three proposed moves in 10 years. Who is to say this is the final option, apart from the proven liar that is Keith Wyness?
80 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:15:35
We won’t need to borrow £78M because we will get some money from selling GP, naming rights etc.. Who knows exactly what that money will be (nobody could know at this stage), but it is reasonable to assume that it will get us close to or below £50M of borrowing.
That’s it! £50M is not a huge amount of money for a major football club to borrow to grow, and, as Bob says, if this is a crazy amount, then banks won’t lend it to us.
Finally, if you don’t think we can afford £50M of borrowing, why are you banging on about wanting more than a mid level stadium? A higher quality stadium = higher costs = more borrowing. It really is that simple. This is really for the last time: YOU CANNOT HAVE A WORLD CLASS STADIUM FOR LOW BORROWING. I don’t know how else to explain this. Unless you have a heap of ready cash, you cannot buy an expensive house for a low mortgage.
81 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:01:31
82 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:07:43
I am only advocating staying at GP and redeveloping because that to my mind rings all the right bells.
Equal or lower cost than Kirkby for a better class stadium
Less division in fans
Better ROI (Return on investment)
Land and buildings owned by EFC
I am not opposed to a new stadium but I am totally opposed to Kirkby for a number of reasons.
I do not believe, even if the stadium was world class, we would get a good return on investment in Kirkby.
How many corporate events,weddings etc can you see being held in KIrkby for example compared to what a good Liverpool location would get.
The transport situation at Kirkby is totally unworkable and has already been questioned by many experts.
I still maintain that the cost of building a stadium in KIrkby is the same as building one anywhere else so the major difference is the amount of EXTRA income you generate to pay the loan.
That is where Kirkby falls flat on its face for me.
And for the sake of repetition the cost of Kirkby is £130M ? not £78M or £50M much less £30M.
83 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:26:52
But personally I think we can achieve higher attendances in a better facility in Kirkby (we can certainly charge more per seat, and get additional corporate revenues). I can?t prove it because this is in the future, and will depend on how well the team is playing, the development of the Premier League, the state of the economy etc. etc.. But I think it is a reasonable assumption to make. If you don?t, then obviously you should take the less risky course and stay in GP.
84 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:26:52
But personally I think we can achieve higher attendances in a better facility in Kirkby (we can certainly charge more per seat, and get additional corporate revenues). I can’t prove it because this is in the future, and will depend on how well the team is playing, the development of the Premier League, the state of the economy etc. etc.. But I think it is a reasonable assumption to make. If you don’t, then obviously you should take the less risky course and stay in GP.
85 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:14:46
You really shoiuld read before you post. You say Kirkby is a moderate risk. Everton believe "could expose the Club to an unsustainable level of debt, resulting in an unviable proposition." That worries me. You sound like more of a gambler than me. I consider that to sound high risk. Higher risk than we’ve been led to believe in the past.
For the record. there aren’t just no and yes in this argument. There are a lot of people who have wanted more information, who are sceptical because of the route taken by others and the subsequent consequences.
Even Arsenal have suffered through a vast increase in debt, minimised through an issue of bonds. However, their status on the field has definitely suffered, and they are the best case scenario. The worst case of high risk finances probably Leeds, many others between the two. I am neither for nor against the move to Kirkby, I do feel that this is a gamble. If it was Blackjack I’d stick.
We are taking a huge risk and Tesco are offering a take it now or it goes offer. They are doing that because Kirkby is an unattractive proposal to investors and other enabling retailers unless it provides a significant step change to Kirkby Town. If this goes wrong it could be disastrous for EFC. Stick or twist.
86 Posted 17/04/2008 at 12:21:15
I also agree that if enough people actually feel that we should not move (as I do) then not going to the match will be the only way to open the debate up again at a club level.
87 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:32:30
Responding to your earlier view on having the money invested in players rather than as you call them dormant assets.
I understand where you are coming from and what you say makes sense.
However, football clubs are now businesses and IMO it is a question of balance.
Fixed assets that appreciate(land and buildings) are much better security for the future than floating assets (players)whose value is nevr certain.
GP and the land it is on cost buttons 120 years ago but is now much higher value.
The best analogy I can give you is buying your own home instead of renting and having more to spend on drinks and smokes.
Now a lot of people prefer the latter and I cant knock them for that but economically for the future it is better to own something rather than rent it.
In Kirkby we will be paying the cost of clearing and preparing the land which will be exorbitantly expensive because it is in a flood plain and we wont even own the land.
88 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:43:53
Firstly there are Pessimists. They believe that it is risky to borrow much more than we are already doing, and so believe that even a relatively low cost (’mid level’) option such as Kirkby is too risky. So we should stick in GP and incrementally expand it. This to me is a very reasonable and arguable position with which I have a lot of sympathy.
Secondly there are the Optimists. They believe that Kirkby is way beneath a club of our tradition and history, and we should be aiming for something a lot better (’the world class stadium in the city’). I have a great deal of sympathy with this aspiration, but since, absent a rich benefactor, it is financially a complete fantasy, there is not much more to be said about it.
In the end, I am probably more of a risk taker than the Pessimists. So I would probably go with Kirkby.
89 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:20:26
90 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:54:54
Sure, we may fail as a football club, and then we won’t have physical assets to fall back on, and we will be screwed. But we ARE a football club! I would rather give it our best shot at making it as a top footballing outfit, and then we will see where we are.
I am not crazy - we shouldn’t go out and borrow £150M to build on Stanley Park. But I think selling non core assets and then borrowing modestly to get a brand new ground feels about the right balance to me.
91 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:51:27
It?s THEIR problem ? I shall just worry about tonight?s game!
92 Posted 17/04/2008 at 13:54:26
do you often resort to puerile insults in order to solidify an innability to give a coherent answer?
Anyway, in response to so-called ’answers’
1) What you are effectively saying is that you know more than DTZ? O.K then!
2) I’ve read that answer several times now, and I buggered if I can actually figure out what it actually means. Could you try answering it again. In fact, i’ll re-word - how exactly can you say we will get a contributory 15 million for goodison whenever it’s mortgaged to the hilt?
3) What you originally said was that we had 15mill from bellfield...Now you’re saying we don’t...Well i guess that clears that up.
4) To be honest Bob, i don’’ think theres a single concept on this earth that i’d need explained to me by you...but just out of curiousity i’m trying to figure out why you’ve made the distintion between a PFI and a loan?..as they both require a fiscal return.
5) I’ll assume by that answer that you’ve actually no answer how the 78mill borrowing will affect the team...It’s certainly not gonna improve it!
P.S The total cost of the stadium build will be 130mill, Everton have been able to scrape together 78mill in loans, leaving a shortfall of 52mill which is still Everton’s shortfall.
I hope this clarifies what a shortfall is.
93 Posted 17/04/2008 at 14:27:15
The shortfall is explained in the statement as not being paid for by EFC. This is paid by Tesco and investors buying a huge chunk of land for buttons, due to no planning permission. They get the planning permission and the increase in the value of the land brings in more investors. The land is then rented out to M&S and TK Maxxxi Priest et al. The £52m comes from the future profits from this. It looks really tight as to whether they will get enough interest now to proceed. I’m sure they will. They’re just making sure they enough retail space to make a profit and some is not used for some other purpose which makes it less attractive. The worrying things is any overspend is ours. The statement says any more debt and this is not viable for EFC, but when you’ve started you’ve gotta finish. We would be left with further debt if this is not the final figure. I don’t think anyone believes this will be. £130m total cost is likely a starting point for a higher figure, and we could be "exposing the Club to an unsustainable level of debt, resulting in an unviable proposition."
94 Posted 17/04/2008 at 14:42:52
What the statement does say is that the shortfall will be made up from retail enabling development on the stadium site!
Maybe you should read the statement again...Tesco are paying nothing to everton...and are not involved in this retail exercise!
Perhaps you should read the statement again, rather than reading between the lines based on previously released erroneous information!
The reliance of EFC upon the enabling development provided through the retail floorspace is therefore typical of how modern stadia are required to be funded.
Reflecting the current financial position of EFC against the realistic costs of building a new mid- level quality stadium the club have made clear that the funding from enabling development is an integral assumption to the successful funding of a new stadium for EFC.
95 Posted 17/04/2008 at 14:53:25
I know Tesco aren?t paying us anything, I think we agree and you?ve misread my post. The point you make is from the same passage I?ve used.4.17: '...Due to land values, the need for new retail floorspace and retailer interest in taking the floorspace, the most appropriate use to enable the shortfall to be met is retailing?.
Tesco will own the retail space and let it out. Amongst their intial purchase of land will be that on which our stadium will be built they contribute that to KMBC they lease is to us. So far anyway. I?m waiting for the next clarification.
96 Posted 17/04/2008 at 15:13:24
This has nothing to do with Tesco.
That?s the way I read it... and there?s nothing in that document to suggest otherwise!
97 Posted 17/04/2008 at 15:42:23
Selling goodison 15mil that means we need to raise about 50 mill between loans and naming rights. thats nothing in todays world.
Going from a very low quality stadium to a mid quality stadium is a massive step up.
98 Posted 17/04/2008 at 15:40:55
I really don’t care if there is ’no alternative’- I’d rather go down with the good ship Goodison, pride intact, in our city than watch "Everton FC" play in a two bit barn in Knowsley in front of 20,000 die hard "yes" voters like Middlesboro supporters. Laughable!
In 10 years the city will be crawling with reds as the children of future generations start the "Support you local club- Liverpool" advice to their siblings.
As I have read on many LFC blogs "let them rot in Kirkby until the gates dwindle, streams dry up, debt ridden and they go bust like Leeds.
Yes voters (if the vote wasn’t rigged that is) have sold our soul to the devil, and now we will burn in hell!
99 Posted 17/04/2008 at 15:44:23
4.7 As indicated within the letter attached at Appendix 3 (dated 8 April 2008) Morgan Williams, Tesco?s letting and investment advisors, have advised that a certain critical mass of retail development is required to generate the step change that will attract the premier retailers and therefore achieve the rents necessary for a viable scheme.
Who do you think will own it?
Morgan Williams are Tesco’s Letting advisor. They may not solely own it, but the main point is this: we don’t pay the £52m.
It is met through the future retail rents.
100 Posted 17/04/2008 at 15:54:56
The problem is the line of crap we were fed by Wyness....what he said was that after the stadium was built we ’will be left with very little debt’...
Now, maybe i’m not on the same planet as this man but i wouldn’t consider well over 100million pounds as very little debt...and that’s assuming we can secure the support for this 58mill ’enabling development’ proposal!
101 Posted 17/04/2008 at 16:04:24
I think you’re reading that wrongly...yes, the 52mill is proposed to be paid by retails floorspace letting....but that is floorspace leased by everton!
TESCO have already denied they will be contributing to the stadium build...and this 52mill is part of the stadium build cost!
102 Posted 17/04/2008 at 16:18:14
Not how good the stadium is. Jees, some people really jump the gun on here.
103 Posted 17/04/2008 at 16:24:30
Match going Evertonians surely are not the people who should be coming up with the answers. How can I, a 30 year old computer programmer, resolve the funding issues and suggest a project plan for the development of a football stadium that meats EFC’s requirements.
The real role we have to play is to say whether this is what meets our standards and requirements, and it plainly does not. We are the people who will have to live with this move and should make it clear that this is not the right one.
With this in mind, we should wait until there is an acceptable resolution instead of making do with the only one we are CURRENTLY being presented with.
104 Posted 17/04/2008 at 16:18:42
£78m contribution is piss cheap. Everyboy knew we were getting a jazzed up, off the shelf stadium that would meet Uefa standards, nothing more, nothing less
That's fine by me.
105 Posted 17/04/2008 at 16:33:36
We won?t even own the land our stadium will be built on. We will rentpayers (on the land) not lanlords.
Totally agree. I?ve spent so much time researching stuff, and reading through planning and financial docs that I struggle to understand. Why because I have not trusted the statements released to the fans. I trust the official docs they have to release by law. then we get the truth. We shouldn?t have to do this. People on here feel passionately that we have accurate information. We all want what?s best, but we?re having to interpret it ourselves. Hopefully by bouncing comments off each other we can understand what future we can expect for our club. I fear for increase in debts affecting our financial clout.
106 Posted 17/04/2008 at 17:05:42
The disturbing thing is that we’ve now learnt the one thing that would allow us to believe that something better might come along in the future is the untruth that we are seeking investment to move the club forward. We are not. Bill is not. If his finances suffer so do EFC. If Philip Green stops backing him where does that leave us? If this costs EFC more than £78m we are seriously in trouble. This
"could expose the Club to an unsustainable level of debt, resulting in an unviable proposition."
107 Posted 17/04/2008 at 17:02:02
Read the article at the top. It quotes directly from the financial statement submitted to KMBC and quotes ..."the current financial position of EFC against the realistic costs of building a new mid- level quality stadium...." The same expression is quoted throughout the whole planning application, and in fact, at one point it expressly states the Everton were aware they were unable to afford anything else.
It?s nothing to do with the area between upper and lower levels - it?s about build quality. We were promised a world class stadium and we?re not getting one.
Turning to those who expect attendances to rise just because capapcity does....
If you had a business and planned to invest money in an expansion, you would (if you were sensible) undertake research to determine whether the market for your expansion existed. There is no record mentioned anywhere, in any of the documentation, that Everton have undertaken such a study. There are numberous studies going on at present to determine the size of the market for the retail element, but none for the potential support. It goes to demonstrate how these people running our club are a disgrace.
Ciaran - I agree with your assessment that the shortfall will be met by profits from rental on the retail units. What is not clear is who will pay the shortfall if the units are not let at sufficient rent levels, or in fact, let at all. Regardless of whether the ownership/letting responsibility is in Everton?s hands or Tesco?s, it is a question that needs answering.
The rumours emanating from studies by various local councils, including Knowsley, seems to indicate that there is insufficient demand for the level of retail to be built.
108 Posted 17/04/2008 at 17:08:41
109 Posted 17/04/2008 at 17:30:31
110 Posted 17/04/2008 at 17:45:55
I didn’t realise you were so sensitive, please forgive my cutting sarcasm.
Just setting off for the match, so this will have to be brief.
You obviously interpret whatever I’ve said in whichever way suits you, that’s your prerogative, and I said I am not going to waste any more of my time "debating" this point with you - maybe someone else out there will explain to you the basic difference between loans and equity finance.
We don’t agree, and never will do. And you know what - it makes not a scrap of difference, because whether this move goes ahead or not will have nothing to do with you or me.
See you tonight, and see you in Kirkby!
111 Posted 17/04/2008 at 18:00:43
And, as you say, given the current financial climate, the banks will be even more cautious, and will require more convincing than ever that the loan is worth making.
Which means that if they give us the finance we need, they have been convinced to do so on the basis of information supplied to them, with which they agree, which will have had to jump more obstacles than usual.
Which I believe backs up the point I was trying to make, so thanks for the help on that one.
112 Posted 17/04/2008 at 18:11:18
Cost of bulldozing GP, building new stadium, renting Anfield, no offsetting sale of GP = borrowings of vastly more than the £50M odd for Kirkby.
It really would be good if we could cut out these fantasy options. Absent a MAJOR new benefactor, we simply cannot afford them. That is why we are choosing between Kirkby and some incremental improvements to GP. How many times does this have to be said?
113 Posted 17/04/2008 at 18:23:54
What I for one said earlier was that it was reasonable to assume that revenues would go up for such reasons as: prices per seat would go up in better facilities (whether we like it or not); corporate revenues would be higher given vastly greater corporate facilties; associated match day revenues (e.g. general catering, speciality dining etc.) would be higher; non match related events (concerts etc.) may bring in some extra money; and, so long as the team is doing well, attendances will most likely go up given generally better facilities, better views etc..
Still think Kirkby revenues will be the same as GP?
114 Posted 17/04/2008 at 18:35:50
The future of our club is in tatters with the fanbase we?ve now got.
115 Posted 17/04/2008 at 19:41:28
I hate to blow a hole in your argument which is at least adding quality to the debate unlike some others on here but I cannot agree that revenues will go up more at Kirkby than at GP for the same outlay in stadium development.
I cannot for the life of me see many corporate events being held there and likewise for weddings etc.
I can see a few funerals happening there though.
My other main objection to Kirkby is the transport and infrastructure which has already been stated by experts to be unworkable so how the hell gate receipts can go up I dont know.
Unless there?s 28000 a game paying double what they pay now.
116 Posted 17/04/2008 at 20:37:18
Christ man! Change the record will you? Stop challenging those in the ?no? camp to write business plans or justify the cost of alternatives to Kirkby.
We simply do not have that level of detail at our diposal.
Flip this on its head. You tell me (in 10,000 words or less - if that?s possible for you, because you know a hell of a lot about this it would seem!) why GP cannot be redeveloped.
I?ll help you start if you wish: -
Our Chairman and his CEO, in spite of seeking investment on a 24/7 basis for the past 5 or 6 years have failed to find any. Period.
117 Posted 17/04/2008 at 22:28:58
As an architect, I can assure you that mid-level is a term for the structural design of an arena or stadium, where a boxed off level is introduced between a varying number of tiers. It does not in any way describe the quality of a build or the quality of a design, no matter how much you want it to.
However, I am in full agreement that the design is of "poor quality" and hardly looks world class.
118 Posted 17/04/2008 at 22:43:25
It?s being Tesco-led because, as well as having no money and being unwilling to dilute shareholding for the good of the club, BK and his sidekick can't be bothered to get off their respective arses and put some work into a proper feasibility plan for the club.
There isn't even a plan A let alone B.
24/7 my arse.
119 Posted 17/04/2008 at 23:02:33
120 Posted 17/04/2008 at 23:06:08
121 Posted 17/04/2008 at 23:01:23
122 Posted 18/04/2008 at 01:25:01
I read it on one of the kirkby posts re KBC and the planning application recently.
I will try to find it and publish it on here.
It did go into detail about an underground stream or something meaning the land would be expensive to prepare before it could be build on.
123 Posted 18/04/2008 at 01:29:28
I thought we played better than I expected with the team he put out.
But the one consolation is it proves beyond reasonable doubt:
1. We need a quality RB
2. Phil Neville is no longer up to prem standards
3. Manny has got it all in his locker and is a must sign together with Peanuts.
Sorry boys, the Kirkby debate was getting stale again anyway.
124 Posted 18/04/2008 at 07:18:40
. Its ok people saying they dont want Kirkby, but not many have come up with anything better other than pie in the sky moves.
125 Posted 18/04/2008 at 08:45:29
Now I won’t place Kirby on the same plane as the Emirates because that appears to be a world class stadium and its impact upon revenue for the club has been outstanding. But we’re taking on around 25% of their debt to fund a stadium so lets not get our knickers in a twist here.
As for funding of it. Goodison will be sold, that will bring in a decent sum. Naming rights will also be sold. Those two between them could bring in £25 million. Advanced sales of tickets, people buying ticket rights for 25 years and so on will bring in a good deal of advanced revenue too.
So all told I doubt that the bank will have to borrow more than £20-25 million to fund this stadium. Which as mortgages go isn’t so bad is it? What mortgages do all respondants here have on their homes?
126 Posted 18/04/2008 at 08:50:26
I don’t have the fortune of having a 9 to 5 job. 5 live commentray and Sky +.
There, absence justified.
127 Posted 18/04/2008 at 08:46:48
We will be leasing the land, but the florrspace of the stadium will be ours....therefore we will be the landlord for these ancillary retailers...you’re still not reading this right...
If Tesco were the Landlords then the 52mill would be their money! and giving that 52 mill would be a contribution towards the stadium..WHICH THEYVE QUITE CLEARLY INDICATED THEYRE NOT DOING!
read the document as it is...and stop filling in the blanks!
128 Posted 18/04/2008 at 09:05:07
Not that sensitive at all lad, however I do fail to see the point of needless insults other than to obfuscate the lack of substance...
And by your answer, it seems that analysis is spot on.
129 Posted 18/04/2008 at 08:47:19
130 Posted 18/04/2008 at 09:47:11
78 big ones for a crappy stadium - imagine a bigger JJB, which frankly unless the ticket prices are massively reduced we haven’t a hope of filling.
Our support is getting older the young Evertonians can’t afford the match.
If the recession kicks in then attendances will dwindle.
Anyone go to Birmingham last week.
Big game for them - what was there crowd ?
I don’t see Kirkby changing our short term suuport but long term it could finish us.
Surely the board must now consider what can be achieved at Goodison for £78m before proceeding.
131 Posted 18/04/2008 at 11:06:26
However it wouldnt cost anywhere near as much as 78Mill it would also generate revenue while we decide on another option.
As for people saying "where?s the alternative?" They are there its just that BK and KW dont want to know.
This would at least give us more time to decide a) if there is a better development opportunity elsewhere - where we can have a EXCELLENT standard of stadium and not compromise on everything.
or B) Contiune to redevelop Goodison?s Main stands.
I dont care if Goodison doesn?t have an underground car park or isnt on a commercial park.
The only way EFC will be successful is if we have a modern, atnospheric 50,000+ seater satdium that would draw the fans in.
Tesco/kirky Stadium will only drive fans away. Not just because its out of liverpool but because it Tesco Value cheap standard (ironically the price isnt going to be)!
You get what you pay for and with Kirky dome we are heading Football Mediocrity.
Along with the likes of Southampton, Coventry, Middlesboro
132 Posted 18/04/2008 at 11:37:11
I think its you who is reading between the lines.
You think we can get £52m from leasing out the catering rights and the bookies. Cos you wouldn’t get too musc more inthat space.
The original planning statement says this.
"Planning Statement (Document 4)
6.9 Up to £50m - £55m of the shortfall is met from the proposed developments south of Cherryfield Drive through the increase in the value of the land that would occur once planning permission has been granted for the enabling developments (Tesco is buying the land at current use value)."
Tesco buy it for peanuts and sell on that’s what they did at th Ricoh, to Donaldsons Property Management who run the Arena Retail Park, and have just merged with DTZ. Only thing is its now worth more money, £50-£55m more.
133 Posted 18/04/2008 at 11:33:17
GP is old, the bullens road is wooden and the main stand is a monster that just can?t be changed without serious money. Added to that within the next 5 years there are serious doubts if we will get a safety certificate for GP . . . I am afraid, no matter how much it hurts we have to move.
Paul Martin talks about re-building the park end as though you can just pick it up like lego and move it back. The simple fact is this would take time and we would end up with a ground for 1 or 2 seasons with 3 sides . . . reducing capacity and losing money. And then we would be no better off as the main stands are GP?s biggest problem.
I voted yes and would do so again because no matter what views people have on the location, cost, Tescos or BK/KW no-one has put forward a viable alternative that we can afford to pay for OURSELVES.
There was a post on here a while ago that I totally agree with . . . no investor will look at us at the moment because why would they buy the club only to be hit with another bill to build a stadium . . . I beleive investors will come once the ground is built . . . wherever that ends up to be.
This is my honest opinion and like most sensible people I have read pages and pages of views from both camps.
The real sad thing about all this is that it has pushed fans against each other . . .particularly at a time when the team needs us.
Oh and one other thing . . .the post on here about boycotting the game and not giving money to the club . . . all I can say is regardless of your views we all have the club at heart and if you want to Boycott the club then FO we don?t want people like you anywhere near the club . . . no matter where it is.
I for one will follow this club no matter where they play . . . . . its in my blood.
134 Posted 18/04/2008 at 12:12:57
135 Posted 18/04/2008 at 11:38:34
cracking debate this, without all of the personal abuse of the early ones, well done all, keep it up.
YES VOTERS ARE SHEEP !!!!!!!
136 Posted 18/04/2008 at 13:43:04
There was a proposal and desgin plan put together by an experienced architect. What I said about the Park End is covered in that.
It involves the scaled rebuilding of all stands. And the Park end takes less than a year! I cant find the link to it at the moment but have read and tell me its not possible then.
If someone has the link could the post it again? cheers
137 Posted 18/04/2008 at 13:29:47
A mid-level quality stadium is what the proposed stadium has always been.
I would be interested to see how Tesco (whose planning application it is) define "mid level quality" Do they mean capacity, architecture? facilities?, what? Are Tesco just using this phrase in the planning application because they think that is the best description to use to get the plans passed?
Clearly we are not and were not ever going to get a stadium equivalent in capacity to say the new Wembley or other leading stadia around the world. Nor were we ever going to get any cutting edge design features such as the Wembley arch.
What features of the new stadium do people think are lacking?
As far as I am concerned a new stadium (whereever) needs to have enough seats, bars, corporate facilities, toilets, disabled facilities, 100% unrestricted views etc. What else does it need? As far as I can see the proposed Kirkby stadium would deliver all these.
Whether Kirkby is the right place for a new stadium, whether the increased cost of the new stadium still represents good value compared to any possible alternative are different questions of course.
138 Posted 18/04/2008 at 14:28:58
Unworkable transport and infrastructure
Return on investment
Burden of debt
The lack of ability and experience of current management
I ask myself why they didnt appoint independent advisors(instead of Tesco men)or do what others do receive 3 or 4 proposals and go with the team that feels right.
Most of all the lack of interest in other possibilities
I still maintain that the cost of a new stadium of whatever quality will be the same. However a BETTER location will attract more commercial interest and give a better return on investment.
And for those who do not believe GP can be developed into a world class stadium for the cost of going to Kirkby read Tom Hughes excellent recent post or look up the work of Trevor Skempton who was involved in St James Park development and put forward workable proposals for GP.
139 Posted 18/04/2008 at 14:41:45
obvious now that you were duped. Whilst you
lapped up the shite coming out about no other
developments being viable.
You lambasted anyone who
objected to Kirkby were being irration and fears
So now low and behold the vote seems it was
obviously about lining pockets rather than what was or is best for EFC. Next time try reading between the lines.
140 Posted 18/04/2008 at 14:26:41
I think Bk is taking us down a road that he hopes will end up making him far richer than he is already is. It's all about the pound note lads..
141 Posted 18/04/2008 at 15:17:32
142 Posted 18/04/2008 at 15:55:38
143 Posted 18/04/2008 at 16:01:00
144 Posted 18/04/2008 at 16:11:13
Where exactly in that does it say that Tesco will be running the enabling development.. IT SAYS THEY WILL OWN THE LAND!
The land WE will be leasing!
I?m not arguing this point anymore... it?s pointless... you're refusing to read the document properly.
Why don?t you email Keith Wyness and ask him... I?m sure he?ll be accomodating with the facts for you!
145 Posted 18/04/2008 at 16:10:32
Why would it cost more to redevelop when GP does not need 4 new stands straight away? Why have far more clubs redeveloped instead relocating?
The kirkby site has only been assessed for 50,000 seats. A compketely new planning application would be required for a 60,000 capacity, and considering the fancifull park and ride scheme that that generated I wouldn’t hold my breath on that.
146 Posted 18/04/2008 at 16:56:58
147 Posted 18/04/2008 at 17:20:20
There needn?t be any obstructed views at a redeveloped GP for the same outlay, so then you have got..... preserved history/heritage/identity and continuity versus mid level stadium with poor accessibility compared to the current site (hence the need for a park and ride scheme that is not necessary at GP), with unknown damage to future identity and perception of the club. Imponderables I know, but as valuable assets as the colour of our shirts IMO!
148 Posted 18/04/2008 at 17:16:34
And there’s no alternative?
With £78m you could take down the Bullens Road stand and build an enormous stand full of executive boxes and corporate hospitality ( not particularly my thing having done it in London, but it’s what we apparently ’need’ ).
The imminent closure of the school and LCC being on record as saying they will help with the relocating og residents next to it, mean there is no reason for this not to happen. You could also afford to extend the Park End with another upper tier and probably just have enough to re-build the Gwladys Street into a 2 tier stand the same height as the new Bullens and Park End.
The only stand left with obstructed views would be the Main Stand which is comparatively new and could be redeveloped at a later date. The pitch could shift slightly nearer the Bullens Road side and south slightly towards the Park End.
And yes, it can be done. Chelsea spent £34m on the mother of corporate hospitality stands a few years ago and that was in London.
Loads of extra seats, virtually no obstructed views, bags of corporate hospitality, new stands and all on the current site with all its history and proven transport infrastructure.
So now you know why they said it would cost nothing, because faced with Kirkby for £78m ( minimum ) and what I have stated above, which way would you have voted?
149 Posted 18/04/2008 at 17:45:23
Added to that it would take years to re-develop GP and all that time we would have reduced attendances and less income.
Until i see a viable alternative that we can fund ourselves then the move is the only choice.
There are too many people screaming and shouting abuse to other people to actually sit down and come up with an alternative that is fundable . . .
Plenty of ideas and suggestions about GP and inner city locations but I’m afraid they all lack one thing . . . . . MONEY.
150 Posted 18/04/2008 at 18:28:34
151 Posted 18/04/2008 at 18:42:16
DESPITE A ’24/7 HUNT’ FOR INVESTMENT OUR CHAIRMAN AND HIS VERY CAREFUL CHOSEN ADVISORS/BOARD MEMBERS HAVE FAILED TO FIND ANY.
Therein lies the problem.
152 Posted 18/04/2008 at 19:51:39
Everton FC are going to have to find £78m for Kirkby. GP is already mortgaged to its full value, so what benefit will we get from selling? Who are these "small investors" who I haven’t heard mention of to date, and why can’t they invest in a redeveloped stadium? What might the poor accessibility cost the club? What might the change in identity/perception cost?
153 Posted 18/04/2008 at 20:12:05
Wyness has to resign, Kenwright following this latest lie coming to light, should follow suit when the right buyer is available. When will the lies and deceit to the club's faithful following ever stop.
154 Posted 19/04/2008 at 08:36:08
I voted Yes because I think we need a brand new stadium (arguable I know Tom), and we don’t have much money to invest in one. Borrowing around £50M after all is said and done for a brand new stadium seems to me a pretty good deal. Certainly it is extremely unlikely that we could get a better deal. Nobody has even remotely come up with even the suggestion of a better one. And they are not hiding under stones somewhere.
I do wish Wyness had not gone off into excessive spin with his embarrassing "almost free" nonsense. But I and other Yes voters I know aren’t stupid and knew this was an exaggeration. The ’No Plan B’ statement was an inept turn of phrase, but read as meaning that there are no other new stadium options that we can actually afford (apart from rebuilding GP), I believe that it is actually the truth. As many of you have tirelessly pointed out on this thread, you doubt we can afford the modest option which is Kirkby: so how on earth could we afford anything else? You are in effect agreeing with Wyness that, apart from GP, there is no Plan B.
So we are back where we are. There is rebuilding GP, a perfectly plausible option which has its pros and cons. There is moving to Kirkby, another perfectly plausible option, which also has its pros and cons.
Then there is the fantasy world in which there is this fantastic stadium which we can build on our own in Liverpool without having to borrow any money, and which Bill and Keith have incredibly decided not to build because somehow they are in love with Tesco and want to line their own pockets. Although why the super fantasy stadium wouldn’t line their pockets even more is never explained.
The only way this fantasy option moves into reality is if a very rich new owner takes over Everton. It cannot be funded by a ’little more investment’ in the club. It requires someone slapping down at least £100M in cash (or personally guaranteeing an equivalent or larger loan). The brutal reality here is that no-one has come forward wanting to buy our club and invest this amount of money in it. Even if they did, they might decide that Kirkby looked rather a good deal. Indeed, why wouldn’t they?
So back in the real world it’s Kirkby or GP.
155 Posted 19/04/2008 at 09:24:34
This is part of the problem Neil Pearse, we do not know because as soon as the club recieved an offer from Tesco we effectively shut up shop and said "oh this’ll do" without looking at any alternative proposals in detail.
156 Posted 19/04/2008 at 09:47:09
The club had been looking at options around Liverpool FOR YEARS before settling on Kirkby. It is not as if some space for a football stadium and enabling development plus grants is some kind of a mystery which you have to look very hard to fnd. It’s not hiding under a rock. This is not a needle in a haystack problem. Everton DID look at all the very few plausible sites, and found them wanting for one reason or another. The fantasy unknown site is exactly that - a fantasy.
Secondly, you really do have to factor in the fact that we cannot afford very much. This SEVERELY limits our options, and means that the very short list of possible options soon becomes very short indeed. For example, Stanley Park is no doubt a great site for a football ground. But not for us, because we can’t afford it.
Thirdly, there really are benefits which are most unlikely to be fully realised elsewhere from the combination of Everton’s pulling power, Tesco’s economic might, and Knowsley’s regeneration scheme. Added to the previous two points, in reality this means that the other options (very few that they ever were in the first place) can’t compete.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not particularly thrilled by Kirkby, although I think it will a much better experience than some people think, because we the fans of a great club will make it so. It is always tempting to suppose that there is some much better and cheaper option somewhere else if only we had looked hard enough for it.
This is a fantasy, and it really is time we got over it.
157 Posted 19/04/2008 at 10:05:34
It therefore actually makes great sense to choose the best option which presents itself (especially when there are so few and you’ve found one with significant benefiits) and get going on it. It would be completely irresponsible to hang around while, for example, LCC finally panics and invents things like the Loop option. Meanwhile we are actually at least a year further down the road to actually having a new stadium and new revenue streams.
158 Posted 19/04/2008 at 10:02:25
Good grief, Neil, are you mad?
Don’t you know there’s a never-ending queue of billionaire Evertonian investors outside Bill’s door offering the club free money but he refuses to have anything to do with them?
159 Posted 19/04/2008 at 10:15:15
Since this is all a matter of unverifiable assumptions about the future, it is possible obviously to believe that, say, our average attendance in Kirkby will slump to below 30,000. Assuming that the team stays reasonably strong on the pitch, I simply don’t agree with you on this assumption. So there will in all likelihood be significantly higher revenues. That is why we are moving.
Finally, there will be the point that there would be even higher additional revenues if we moved to the super fantasy stadium in Liverpool (e.g. the one on Stanley Park). I completely agree. But since we cannot afford to move to this stadium, the point is simply irrelevant.
160 Posted 19/04/2008 at 11:18:50
"I can confirm that the Sports Business Group at Deloitte were appointed in September 2007 to work with the management of EFC on their business paln in connection with a potential new stadium.....
"Whilst the club has stabilised its position in the last few years there has been a legacy of debt which is long term in nature but which impacts on present and future borrowing possibilities."
A number of options are (for funding) are currently being considered. These are the combination of the following;
* Long term bank debt
* Syndicated debt
* Private equity funding
* Securitisation of future income streams
* Securitisation of new stadium naming rights
* Sale of Goodison Park
* Sale of Bellefield.
Now, apart from the curious fact that Deloittes were appointed to work on a business plan for Kirkby in September 2007 - after the ballot - the most concerning element of the given options is the need to raise money to fund the stadium by ?Securitisation of future income streams.?
By your own admittance, Kirkby is ?not particularly thrilling,? which would infer you and the ?yes? voters you know, are willing to settle for Kirkby on the assumption that it will produce sufficient increased revenue streams, that will allow the club to compete with the best teams in Europe. It seems clear that if EFC are having to rely on those same future revenue streams to pay for the stadium, then the weight of that consideration is rendered somewhat useless.
In short, you are prepared to settle for Kirkby, despite now knowing that the reason you give priority to - the increased revenue streams - will be secured to partly pay for the stadium.
Bringing this debate back to the original premis of the article and this is aimed at all Evertonians;
Knowing what you do know, would you have voted ?yes? to relocate Everton FC to Kirkby?
161 Posted 19/04/2008 at 11:36:54
You make a lot of very good points and its not difficult to see how you?re hell bent on Kirkby but there are a significant number of difficulties with Kirkby that cannot be overcome.
Transport and infrastructure for 40,000 residents as opposed to Liverpool with 500,000 residents.It has already been stated by experts that the transport proposals for Kirkby are unworkable (onto plan B then eh?).
IMO and supported by logic Kirkby is unlikely to attract more corporate/event income than Liverpool for the same outlay.
The cost of Kirkby is £130M not £78M and although there is talk of enabling development to make up the £52M (stores/restaurants in the stadium) we still have to fund that money not Tesco nor KBC.
As already stated GP is on a mortgage and all other sources of potential income are the same whether the stadium is in Kirkby or Liverpool.
For example whats to stop naming rights for the New GP. What's to stop the new commercial activities being built in to a new GP.
I have said on many occasions that the cost of a new stadium is roughly the same whether its built in Kirkby or Walton Hall park.
However IMO and supported by work done by Trevor Skempton,an experienced and well respected "stadium" architect GP can be redeveloped to a much higher standard than Kirkby at the same or lower costs over time during close seasons.
GP is not about to be closed down nor shut down and does not need demolishing to rebuild a new stadium.
To close I would argue that a mortgage on a redeveloped GP or new stadium in Liverpool is much more likely to be supported by additional income than somewhere like Kirkby which has no experienceof handling large numbers of "visitors" and certainly nothing else to attract visitors other than the proposed Tesco site.
What commercial activities would prefer Kirkby to Liverpool.
162 Posted 19/04/2008 at 12:22:03
Neil in particular, you make a very important new point (at least to me). If it is really true that the only way we can afford to unlock new revenue streams is to securitise them in advance then - to coin a phrase - we are basically fucked as a club whatever we do.
Rebuilding GP is then not particularly attractive either. The investment will be lower (maybe), but so will the increased revenue streams (probably), and presumably we will have to securitise these new revenue streams too.
Hopefully this is a bit pessimistic. We are really painted into a corner if this is the situation. We are literally then a business which cannot continue to compete at its current level of operations, but cannot afford to grow. No wonder no-one is willing to invest in us!
If this is true, what we need is not investment (i.e. something with some ultimate return), but charitable contributions. So we really are looking for the sugar daddy...
163 Posted 19/04/2008 at 13:08:07
a couple of points.
We already have a sugar daddy he?s called SKY. However he has just been propping up the operating losses that our NON sugar daddy(BK)has failed to address adequately.
No business (thats what we all are now)can stand still because by standing still we are going backwards if you know what I mean.
The only way forward is to increase revenue streams by success on the pitch and better marketing (our non gate receipt income is poor compared to most other leading clubs).
The best analogy I can make is when the RS came up from the old 2nd Division in the early 60?s with a REAL cowshed of a ground Shankly banned any journalist who came out with a negative report or comment on the RS and galvanised the whole club (Board, supporters, staff etc.)behind the team and of course with media manipulation and success on the pitch created the monster that is there today.
A long winded way in saying success on the pitch and within the football club is the most important factor for building for the future.
Now back to reality.
I have no time at all for the current board.
No vision,no ability and no money doesnt do much for anyone especially me.
And the consistent deception doesn't do a lot for anybody either.
GP is not about to fall down or be shut down.
Any new stadium has to be funded by borrowing and therefore eats into potential revenue streams.
The logic for me then is to concentrate finances into success on the pitch while improving our operational management to control costs and improve marketing.
If we were to maintain this for a couple of years we could then confidently reinvest in better facilities at GP on land WE own.
164 Posted 19/04/2008 at 12:37:41
In terms of the increased revenues from a brand new stadium in Liverpool relative to a brand new stadium in Kirkby, I have already agreed that this is very likely. But then I think that the Liverpool stadium will be more expensive, so you pays your money and you takes your choice. (And anyway, this new stadium in Liverpool doesn’t actually exist as anything other than a wish.)
What everything all comes down to now from a financial standpoint (if Neil Adderley is wrong and we are not just screwed anyway), is the relative cost / revenue ratios and risk / return profiles of rebuilding GP versus moving to Kirkby. My guess would be, given that this is the way the world usually works, GP is lower cost / lower return / lower risk, and Kirkby is higher cost / higher return / higher risk.
I am sure that it is exceedingly difficult to definitively prove which is the financially superior option. This is completely normal in all the major business choices that I have worked on, and is largely because the future is by definition unpredictable. (To what extent might GP rebuilding or Kirkby building go over budget? What can you charge for the new improved facilities in either location? How many people will come? etc. etc..)
Jay, I am not actually "hell bent" on Kirkby. As you can all probably tell, I do get more than a little exasperated by having to endlessly debate completely unaffordable and undoable fantasy options (especially when that debate is coupled with the abuse of those who are simply a bit more realistic).
I believe for absolute certain (don’t we all?) that we have to secure increased revenues to stay a viable top premiership club. And that we have to do so SOON (i.e. we cannot afford to wait for ’the perfect option’ to come along - which IMO it won’t because it doesn’t exist). Given this situation, I believe we are choosing between rebuilding GP and building Kirkby. And, on balance, based on my experience of the world and what seem to me to be the most plausible assumptions in a situation where proof is impossible, I believe that Kirkby represents a better financial deal for the club, more likely to unlock more revenues and make us more competitive as a football club.
(I would rather we were moving to Kings Dock or Stanley Park... Another secret: I would be quite prepared, although with a very heavy heart, to groundshare with LFC, and am sure that would be the best financial option of all for us. And for them.)
165 Posted 19/04/2008 at 13:04:49
Further to the considered options within the Deloitte letter - whilst there are no exact figures given, it is interesting to try and clarify what is being suggested here;
The first five of the seven options, even though they are given different titles are nothing other than forms of debt to the club. The last, the sale of Bellefield, is currently in a state of limbo due to the planning consent issue and the sale of Goodison, land in a poor value area of Liverpool which has little opportunity of sale to anything other than residential property suitable for that area. Talk of a supermarket site has been ruled out by city planners and also Tesco are building a massive store on Project Jennifer and Asda are opening another in Bootle.
The ability of raising finance through the first two will now be diminished by
the current difficulties in the financial markets; this clearly has little to do with Everton and probably was not foreseen at the time of the initial discussions with Tesco. The securitization deals are equally fraught with complexities, the first suggestion concerning future income streams is complicated due to the existence of the current agreement with The Prudential, against the next
twenty years ticket and corporate revenues at Goodison. I believe that at last count we owe around £20M on this.
With regard to the securitization of the income from naming rights, the figure being projected by Everton is optimistic to say the least. For example, the Arsenal deal (£50m over 15 years) put against Everton?s expectations by comparison are frankly bewildering if you?re being realistic. The ability to securitize and to what level, will be heavily dependent on the terms of the deal, which in turn will
contain performance targets; for instance getting into the Champions league
will attract higher funding in addition to the basic payment.
No matter what, all these forms of debt capital / finance have an associated
cost which needs to be extracted from one area only, namely the club.
Given the above, the precarious position ?Destination Kirkby? finds itself in regards to its non-compliance with planning policy and the undoubted split in the fanbase, I would say that as it stands Kirkby is a huge risk to take ? or if you like a huge gamble were the stakes are literally being raised not by Everton FC but by Tesco Stores Limited.
166 Posted 19/04/2008 at 13:56:34
That’s a very arguable position, and it’s a tough call either way. The split in the fanbase is a very real consideration against Kirkby, although hardly decisive if we HAVE to move to generate significantly new revenues. I don’t worry too much about the planning difficulties - I expect we will have those in different forms whatever we decide to do (try knocking down the streets around Goodison).
The danger of the position you outline is that we find ourselves in GP in two years time, have no more options than we have today, have now lost the Kirkby option, believe by then that we desperately need to move to raise revenues, and can find no option that we can afford. Then we have lost two more years and really have no place to go.
Finally, maybe it’s just me on the GP rebuild option, but I hardly delight in the idea that in a few years time we would have an old if refurbished stadium almost literally in the shadow of the gleaming Terminal 5 monstrosity that is the new LFC home. You know, I think I might rather be in Kirkby.
167 Posted 19/04/2008 at 14:26:57
If you read my post again mate, I havn?t abused any yes voters. My comment merely stated that the rubbish that come out of the club at the time of the ballot, it was a concern to me that it was believed.
And Whilst your points are valid and in some circumstances, completely agreeable by the vast majority of no voters, no viable option or plan B was allowed to be discussed with the board at EFC because a exclusivity deal with Tesco.
And there was a viable option brought to the table, the costs etc could not and would not be discussed because of a certain deal that gagged EFC.
My point was that Wyness and Kenwright after the latest lie to come to light should now leave the club.
We as Evertonians, yes or no voters deserve better. And that was my point.
168 Posted 19/04/2008 at 14:32:56
However, you can understand that I get a bit tired of being told month after month that I only voted Yes because I am some sort of child who believes every single word that comes out of Bill’s and Keith’s mouths. And I am not saying that is what you said!
I think Bill and particularly Keith have said some pretty incautious not to say stupid things over the last year. But my interest is in Everton getting the money we need to continue to compete in the upper half of the Premiership. Just because Bill and Keith support something does not mean it is thereby wrong. I and all of us can make our own judgements on these things.
169 Posted 19/04/2008 at 14:47:23
Supporting something is one thing, but to hide the facts from the PEOPLE who are the club's main source of revenue with a total disregard for their entitlement to know the truth is another.
170 Posted 19/04/2008 at 17:29:37
Quite simply, start at the Park End in the Summer and get a new upper tier and roof on it. This would probably take 6 months maximum and affect possibly 6 games at the sart of a season lowering capacity to 34,500. However, once done, the capacity would be up to around 44,500 for the rest of the season meaning we would have a chance to increase attendances for around 15 games and cover anything we had lost early in the season.
The following Summer, we take down the Bullens Road making capacity back down to around 34,000. That stand needs to be a monster with a lot of corporate facilities and would take all season and follwing Summer to complete, but once finished, capacity is up to around 47,000 and the corporate revenue starts to pour in helping to offset the season of capacity of 34,500.
The following Summer, take down the Street End and rebuild, capacity drops down to around 35,000 again for a season and then we have a stadium with 4 modern stands, albeit the main stand needs re-shaping (as in Tom Hughes?s plan) eventually.
Advantages are we spread the cost, we can stop at any stage if we have to, we don?t drop below 34,500 capacity (not much less than the current average anyway) and we get to stay at Goodison.
Where?s the money coming from is the cry? Like any business we borrow against future increased income. If it?s so impossible, how come Aston Villa and Newcastle as just 2 examples (and you could add Spurs & West Ham as others) have done it? No sugar daddies there, are there? Only smart, businessmen (Doug Ellis is as shrewd as they come with the cash, as is Sir John Hall or Irving Scholar or Alan Sugar etc, etc) with an eye for detail and getting it right (their on-the-pitch dealings not always so good I?ll grant you) whereas we have dear old Billy & Bully.
Therein lies the problem. EFC have lacked the commercial nous for a long time now and that is what has to really change.
171 Posted 19/04/2008 at 20:02:01
I hope you werent saying I abused you because I actually respected the points you put forward and why you had your point of view.
The main problem we all share which Karl Masters has highlighted is a continuing inept board who have no vision (only the Moyes and Tesco plan)no ability and no money.Yes Bill is a blue blood but he?s full of bullshit and no substance and its not changing.
Together with all the operational issues (Ticket/travel fiascos, poor marketing, clumsy transfers, continuous losses) add the blatant lie that he was looking for investment 24/7 when his own financial advisers have put into print as part of the Kirkby proposals>"THE DIRECTORS OF EFC HAVE NO INTENTION OF DILUTING THEIR SHAREHOLDING TO ATTRACT INVESTMENT>"
And this is the man some people want to take us to the "Promised land".
IMHO The man is a clueless dreamer and his sidekick a selfish greedy man who was only appointed to cover the "cracks" that Trevor Birch wouldnt.
172 Posted 19/04/2008 at 20:36:22
I appreciate your views, I just don’t have such a negative take on Kenwright, who I think has done a pretty good job steadying the ship over the last few years. Like you, I am not a great fan of Wyness’s from what I can see - there are too many operational fuck-ups, and he is not an easy man to like personally, to put it mildly.
But looking around many of the chairmen and CEOs of other clubs, we could have done a lot worse. And the lesson from our neighbours is surely that we should be very careful before we run off into the arms of rich strangers - they may REALLY be worse.
I tend to judge people on their actions and their results. Most people talk a lot of crap in my experience, so I don’t pay too much regard to that. On the basis of actions and results I think the club is in pretty decent shape. As Moyes puts it this week, there is a good foundation. No more, but no less either. Outside the top four, there is no clearly stronger club in my opinion. We are fifth (just!), we have the best squad for twenty years (even if too small), we are now well respected by other fans and by the media, we have a very solid fan base ourselves, and we are actively trying within our modest means to improve our financial position in the future (Kirkby, whether you like it or not).
In the end, I really cannot square the "clueless dreamer" and the "selfish greedy man" with the reality of where we actually are today. The dreamer and the greedy one must somehow be extraordinarily lucky! You are asking me to believe the equivalent of there being a pretty successful business which has seen its fortunes transformed over the last five years - but its board and its executives are all crap, if not indeed corrupt. It’s just not plausible.
Based on all that, I think it would be a huge and risky leap in the dark to wantonly break up the Kenwright / Moyes / Wyness triumvirate which has got us to where we stand now. Maybe a new owner with more money will come along in time, and I hope Kenwright (unlike the enriched but now anguished fool David Moores) thinks very carefully before handing over our club to them. In the meantime, I am happy for them to continue - whilst hoping and expecting that they, like the players on the pitch, will continue to improve their performance.
173 Posted 19/04/2008 at 21:05:02
KEIOC - why??? Or do no Evertonians come from outside the city boundaries? Do we have no fans in Knowsley/Bootle/Crosby? Or, are they not ?real? Evertonians in your eyes (before you start, I live in the City boundaries)?
It needs to and It's going to happen - I just wish Kenwright & Co would tell us the truth, that's all.
174 Posted 19/04/2008 at 21:14:52
Trevor Skempton took up the baton, so to speak, and told Mr. Kenwright and the top table about Newcastle United ? ?If I can just come back on the stadium issue, with a little bit of history, I was working in Newcastle for the city council in 1990. At that time Newcastle had 4,000 seats and an average attendance of 23,000. Their ground was the worst in the old Second Division. The Magpie Group took over the club, but before they took over, the old Board issued a document, which I have at home, saying that they could only accommodate 33,000 in a stadium at St James? Park. We were asked to look into it and we said that they could expand the ground ? even as far as 80,000 if they were prepared to do it in certain ways. The club was taken over and I don?t see anybody having poured money into a black hole in Newcastle. Average attendances are now over 50,000. This has been built up, gradually, by a business plan. Sound business principles. It?s a pity they haven?t got a manager like David there or there?d have been no stopping them. The fact is that they?ve built up their fan base, everybody talks about them being a big club but they?re no bigger than Everton. They were averaging 23,000 in 1990. Kevin Keegan started taking them forward; they built it up bit by bit by bit. In the next few years they are building another stand at the Gallowgate, to take their capacity up to 65,000. That is a club that has not been bankrolled by a sugar daddy, it is a club that is run on aggressive but sound business principles.? Mr Kenwright replied saying ?I know all about Newcastle United, I agree with a lot of what you say. Their success came actually on the pitch first before they started moving into business?? Mr Kenwright at this point was tackled by many from the floor for the comment about Newcastle?s supposed ?success? on the pitch first before any ground redevelopment at St. James? Park.
and another from the AGM minutes - (Re Fortress sports fund and Robert Earl?s investment)
"Ironic I am following the last shareholder, as two years back he expressed an opinion saying he didn?t want to see Samuelson owning the club from overseas. It was a charade. What was it, Mr Ross - ?A means to an end?? A charade to fool all the shareholders here on that night. Mr. Earl, and his company BCR Sports, based in the Virgin Islands, you own almost 24% of this Club ? I would love to know who is behind that, I won?t expect an answer but that?s almost a quarter of this Club that?s owned on sunnier shores."
and last of all Re Kirkby land costs -
The Board wheeled out a Mr Chris Potts, from Savills, planning consultants working with Everton Football Club. We were informed by Mr. Potts, a Director of Savills, that Goodison Park could not be developed in such a way to accommodate a capacity in excess of 37,500. Bill Kenwright added that it would cost more to develop at Goodison than at a new ground. The claim from Mr Potts was instantly challenged by shareholders, one pointing out that the current chairman had been part of a group that had paid Terry Ward, the man responsible for the redevelopment of Twickenham, to draw up plans proving that Goodison Park, on its current footprint, could indeed be redeveloped to accommodate a capacity in the region of 55,000. And furthermore, that was over ten years ago! Mr Potts continued to struggle, informing the meeting that the Bestway / Loop proposal was also too expensive, citing the necessity to build a plinth and the required infrastructure changes as but two reasons for it being a non-runner. Some shareholders tackled him over his comments on the Bestway / Loop proposal after he re-iterated that it was not feasible. Mr Potts admitted he?d not seen HOK?s report, on the Bestway / Loop proposal. Both Bill Kenwright and Keith Wyness stated likewise, they?d seen no HOK report.
The shareholder asking the question, tackling Mr Potts? considered opinion on the Bestway / Loop proposal, produced a copy of the report and offered to give it to the top table! Both Mr Potts and Bill Kenwright claimed then to have spoken with HOK, with the chairman saying that he had been told (by HOK) ?it would be hugely hugely hugely costly to build a stadium like this.?
.? Expressing an interest in Mr Potts? comments about the HOK report, the shareholder opined that it was probably only the Board of Everton FC, and Mr. Potts, who had not yet seen this report. The shareholder agreed with the Board that it (The Loop) would be very expensive but he countered that by claiming, in his consideration, that it would be ?more expensive to build a stadium on a landfill site that was full of toxins and other poisons, costing millions to decontaminate that site.?
Mr Potts, somewhat unbelievably, replied saying, ?Certainly construction costs are not my discipline.? The shareholder jumped in saying ?you?ve just said it will be very expensive to build a plinth and now you?re saying you?ve no experience??
Thought it might spice the debate up a bit.
175 Posted 19/04/2008 at 22:30:15
Moyes has succeeded despite the board not because of them
We are in greater debt than ever despite the Rooney sale.
We have sold off or mortgaged nearly all of Evertons assets.
We continue to make operating losses despite the huge increase in sky income.
KW gets c. £500,000 a year whereas IMO that position should carry a salary all up of less than £200k particularly given our position and financial performance.
I don't suppose you'll agree but for what it's worth its my opinion.
176 Posted 19/04/2008 at 22:43:08
if you look at all the experts reports on Goodison (except the "Tesco gang"), it is more affordable than Kirkby and can be done in our own affordable time frame.
On the point of knocking down houses, there are 72 homes and a nursing home to be demolished in Kirkby and the land is contaminated and reputedly will cost millions before it can be built on.
And why people still come on here saying it will only cost £78million is beyond me.
KirkbyY as of end of last year was estimated to cost EFC 0163130 million for the stadium build before fitting out.
The loans and or sponsorship to service it were estimated at £78 million leaving a shortfall of £52 million which is covered by talking about retail enabling which effectively means EFC have to create space within the stadium development for shops/restaurants which could also be done quite easily at GP.
Kirkby also has serious transport issues which has been reported on by EFC?s own experts and has been suggested as being total pie in the sky and unworkable.
Kirkby is not the deal of the century....
It's THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY!
177 Posted 20/04/2008 at 00:22:46
EFC really are at best described as a lower to mid table makewight club not even on par with Man City Spurs etc...Everton have died!
Now...all you no voters..you keep on harping on about the investment in Liverpool and the money we are losing on out as facilities in a Kirkby stadium are not on par with Liverpool city centre. Well... we are in the confines of the arbitrary boundary of Liverpool and we have not been approached with massive investment to stay..why do you think that is? Corporate facilites, conference rooms etc are already at saturation point and who?s to say a redeveloped GP would have better facilities then the Kings Dock arena?! and of course the Redshites new stadium will also have better facilities becaue it WILL be bigger and better than anything we can afford to build ANYWHERE..... Everton are aware of this, that is why they?re moving away... we cannot compete... WE MOVE OR DIE..
Our support within it?s local geographical area is at its optimum, we have to move to attract more support.. we cannot live by scouse(ers) alone, even the redshite know that, thats why they?re trying to make themselves more attractive to those outside of the city... anyway... read the latest article on KEIOC and my comments re moving to an area where the local concil want us... you don?t see any signs trumpeting the city of Liverpool as the home of Everton Football Club do you? Move outside of the arbitrary boundary and consider this..
WELCOME TO KNOWSLEY, THE NEW HOME OF EVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB, THE PRIDE OF MERSEYSIDE... you know Merseyside don?t you, that arbitrary area which is sooo huge, it takes ages to get from one end of it to the other so people don?t travel but stay in their own conclaves following their own local football clubs like South Liverpool FC, Bootle FC, Marine FC, Liverpool FC and Everton FC, etc...Do you get the gist boys n girls. Kirkby is not the back of beyond... I?m tired now, time to book my flight to get home to the other end of Merseyside!!!
178 Posted 20/04/2008 at 08:32:08
"Corporate facilites, conference rooms etc are already at saturation point"
The corporate facilities at GP are the only part of the stadium that are consistently not sold out. They only number a few hundred places, yet they are regularly empty. Perhaps they are poorly marketed, Perhaps there isn’t demand for thousands of these seats at EFC.
Your comments about Kirkby not being the back of beyond.... I suggest you look at any map. There is no density of population beyond Kirkby, it will always be the end of the line. Knowsley is just a thin sliver of population around the main conurbation. It will never be anything more than that.
179 Posted 20/04/2008 at 07:23:54
(Not) coincidently, Tesco Stores Limited are now issuing similar threats to a Knowsley Council that has expressed "significant concerns" and sees the non-compliance with various planning policies as "serious impediments to supporting the application."
It all sounds grimly familiar.
I have just had a look at the KEIOC website and have taken the liberty of posting the reply to your comment. I would say it sums up your continued attempts to stifle the reality of what Everton FC (or its Board of Directors) has allowed itself to become and where ?Destination Kirkby? has found itself, rather well:
"Alex, I?m amazed that anyone reading the plethora of information available on this site can still attempt to dumb down the ground move debate by suggesting that it concerns arbitrary boundary lines between Liverpool and Knowsley. For most, with a modicum of intelligence, the ground move concerns the problems surrounding delivering a stadium fit for a top class premiership club.Hopefully, the individuals, companies and bodies that have had to deal with this Everton board will continue to act in a professional and dignified manner once the current incumbents come crawling back from the brink of this very bad idea.
"It would appear that the initial fears that the Kirkby stadium offers little more than a cheap means to an end solution to Everton?s problems which will ultimately devalue the match experience of the vast majority of Evertonians, that delivering a stadium nine miles from a city centre is somehow conducive to that experience and that such a move will enhance the club's ability to generate increased and additional revenue streams for use on the field of play by the manager are all valid and justified concerns and should not be stifled by individuals who fail to understand these arguments or have another agenda.
"Setting aside the now embarrassing claims that the cost to Everton is minimal, as it stands the Kirkby Stadium, due to its heavy reliance on the critical mass of retail required to generate sufficient cross subsidy to partially fund the stadium construction, would appear to be genuinely in a precarious state as the enabling development contravenes regional planning policy and as the Secretary of State has recently indicated that no changes to these planning policies will be made to accommodate Tesco?s and Knowsley?s belief that Kirkby should be an exception to these regulations means that an inevitable call-in will take place even if KMBC are minded to grant planning permission. This does not appear to be KEIOC propaganda; it?s coming from Tesco and KMBC and places the whole project into question.
"These latest veiled threats of no retail, no stadium, no regeneration would appear to lend some credence to the argument that Everton Football Club have become little more than a pawn in a political game with tens of millions of pounds of retail spending at stake, and little else, and sadly is testimony to the depths Everton have been taken to by this poorly funded regime.
"Whilst some individuals continue to attempt to ridicule KEIOC and its firmly held belief that the whole Kirkby concept simply isn?t good enough for a major football club, many fans are beginning to agree that perhaps this isn?t the deal of the century that was promoted to them. Possibly it is time for fans to direct these concerns toward the current incumbents at Goodison, ask why Everton have become involved in an undeliverable scheme that appears to offer the fans of the club a cheap stadium for an exorbitant figure now rapidly approaching £100 Million, ask if on refection it was wise to enter into an exclusivity agreement on a stadium that due to current and emerging planning policy was and still remains undeliverable and demand to know why no contingency plans have been developed or even discussed with prospective stakeholders in the city."
180 Posted 20/04/2008 at 09:26:01
Anyway... where are your viable funded alternatives?! Whatever you think about the financing of Kirkby IT IS financed!!.
And to describe Kirkby itself as the end of the line... does that mean no more investment ever in Kirkby because its not worth it! I do seem to remember reading that the city of Liverpool was once only covering an area of 3 to 4 miles from the Mersey shoreline, but hey presto.it grew!! I remember not so long ago that Milton Keynes didn?t even exist! The point being that towns and cities constantly evolve...
Anyway..gotta go to work... I?ll be bacl!!
181 Posted 20/04/2008 at 10:08:27
Your analysis is amazing...no other sites besides Kirkby exist (because the people who informed you Everton are getting a world class stadium for free told you so); no better stadium for a club like Everton - short of truly wealthy patrons - will come along (because the men who told you they?re not looking for investment told you no investors are out there); time is of the essence, so let?s all lump in with a project that?s nailed on to be tied up in an inquiry>appeal>inquiry>appeal loop for the forseeable.
On this Kirkby issue, you?re the clearest case I?ve seen of an intelligent man who - because they?ve taken up a position for so long - can?t (or wont) extricate themselves from it. It?s painful to watch in all honesty.
182 Posted 20/04/2008 at 11:40:21
183 Posted 20/04/2008 at 12:17:47
184 Posted 20/04/2008 at 12:34:35
185 Posted 20/04/2008 at 14:00:30
1. Who on earth is going to want to go shopping in a retail development on a match day and have to contend with match day traffic, clogged streets etc? Seeing as Saturday is the main shopping day, should we move to Kirkby I would soon expect our home games to be predominantly played at any other time of the week except 3.00pm on a Saturday, so expect more and more Sunday kick-offs, it wouldn’t surprise me if we even started playing on a Friday night aka Tranmere. We all now who the paymasters are here, Tesco will call the shots and they will want the games played at the quietest times of the week for the store.
2. If we have to find £78 million, surely this money could be better spent at GP. There is more than enough land behind the Park End to effectively make that the business centre of the ground. Centralise all ticketing, pre and post match banqueting, changing rooms,tunnel, board room, club offices etc there. That way it will free up the space to replace the main stand or Bullens with something larger. You cant tell me that this cant be achieved. Everton need to get Creative, forgot what everyone else is doing, do something unique and keep the supoorter base intact and grow the corporate side.
186 Posted 20/04/2008 at 14:41:34
187 Posted 20/04/2008 at 15:08:06
If this stadium was the Xanadu of Premier League stadia: 21st century public transport system whisking us all to and from a (one from the nostalgia file this) ?world class?, iconic structure with luxurious, no expense spared fit-out to rival the best stadiums in Europe and North America... it might just entice people out of town to it. As it is, we?ve been promised a mid-level, mediocre compromise that we?d pay through the nose for over a very long period of time.
188 Posted 20/04/2008 at 17:22:46
Huddersfield’s ground has had at least 2 sponsors so why can’t an old stadium? The league itself, and other leagues have had several sponsors. If the Parkend is completely redeveloped into a massive 2 tier with a hotel/conference centre/residential development built into it, why couldn’t this end be part funded by it’s own enabler and sponsored by the developer, with hotel restaurant overlooking the pitch and boxes doubling as rooms as an enticement to a major hotel chain. GP lies on a main arterial route out of the city, and is only 2 mile out of the centre. It would be practicallly unrestricted in height, and is on land we actually own meaning we receive the enabling funding in full for a 5,10 or even 15 storey development. I suppose KW would call it a stand for "practically nothing". Or, the Bullens could be first extended at its rear increasing the capacity by 3-5,000 adding exec boxes along that side, and getting rid of all obstructions in the upper tier, while greatly increasing the concourse facilities on that side..... this would be a painless increase in capacity with no loss of capacity during transition, as occured at several other stand extensions. This would allow the Park end to be either extended or demolished with the capacity never falling below the current levels, especially if the corner section was added first. Problematic? Of course there are planning and access issues etc, but nothing unpresidented. This would bring the capacity upto 50+k in 1,2 or three phases dependent on finances, and need not cost anything like as much as Kirkby.
189 Posted 20/04/2008 at 18:08:39
I suppose it makes your life rather easier than actually arguing with people who you disagree with. Which to be fair the likes of Tom, Jay, Neil and Karl regularly do. As I have repeatedly said, I am not particularly enthralled by Kirkby, so I am always keen to hear from people who have other alternatives to suggest that we might be able to afford. So far the only one that appears to have the remotest degree of plausibility is rebuilding GP. And if you actually read anything of the things I wrote you might understand why.
190 Posted 20/04/2008 at 22:02:53
191 Posted 22/04/2008 at 00:38:18
192 Posted 09/05/2008 at 12:27:23
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.