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

Help... I'm confused!

By Brian Baker :  28/04/2008 :  Comments (59) :
I've sat back, often in great frustration listening to both sides of the Kirkby debate, and I am still as confused as ever. One minute I am in full support of the Everton Board, the next I am onside with KEIOC, thinking that the move to Kirkby will be a bad move. But what really is in best interests of the club, the team and the fans? If you listen to the argument of the club, what you hear is one based on finances and club image. The KEIOC argument is based on the location in relation to the city centre, how it will affect the club's long-term support and how some fans will be inconvenienced by travelling difficulties.

There is always local opposition to local building schemes. My mother had a single old man lodging a protest about her loft extention, because he may be able to see the dormer window from the back upstairs window of his house 200 yds away.

Why are people protesting in Kirkby? What is the real effect of a Tesco mega-store moving into an area of relatively high unemployment, which is what Kirkby is. Generally it provides low-paid jobs for local people, increases local traffic, and will provide more passing trade for non-competetive businesses. So what's the problem? The effect on small local competetive businesses is obviously important, but would the megastore just speed up the inevitable for some of these small corner shops anyway?

How much of the local opposition is genuine and how much is driven by other agendas? Currently as its stands the local transport infrastructure would not cope with the extra traffic, caused by the increase in retail outlets, let alone matchdays when 40,000+ fans will descend on the area. But it was never inetended to. The planners are intending to increase the frequency of of the local train and bus services, and to widen roads leading to the complex. There is also talk of the Mersey Tram system being extended to Kirkby if the Stadium build goes to go ahead.

Anyway, enough about the pros and cons of building in Kirkby. What about KEIOC's argument of either re-developing Goodison park or moving to another site within the city boundaries? How much would either of these alternative schemes cost? Are any of them going to cost the club less than £78 million? I've seen well presented plans and costings for redeveloping Goodison, but I have yet to see a viable costed plan for moving to an alternative site in the city. So to me the only viable plan to come from KEIOC, is that the club COULD possibly afford is to stay where they are and redevelop Goodison. However, the arguments against developing Goodison are also quite convincing.

I have yet to hear someone suggesting that we build our new stadium right next to Liverpool's new stadium in Stanley Park. The additional area would not take up that much more of green park space and would use the same parking spaces and Transport links, infrastructure, as the new Anfield.

So what is the real answer? Moving or staying? If we stay, we risk getting left behind the rest of the pack, and risk being stuck in a broken-down stadium going nowhere. If we move, we risk alienating half of our fan base and changing our identity.

The problem is, are we hearing the real facts from both sides, or are we hearing what they just want to tell us? Me... I'm just as confused as ever.

Reader Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Dave Wilson
1   Posted 28/04/2008 at 19:11:49

Report abuse

So did the arl fella get his way, or did your ma get her loft extention ?
Danny Naylor
2   Posted 28/04/2008 at 20:04:27

Report abuse

One side of the argument is mainly based on pride and history. The other side is based on moving on to stay with the pack in the big money premier league.

The thing that gets fuels the negativity is based on facts and figures that get out which are questionable, adding to the argument of moving to Kirkby is the wrong thing.

But saying this, as mentioned in the article, the proposed move is probably the only one where facts an figures have been given and estimated. The key word being ESTIMATED. For eg I could estimate that Manny Fernandes is a world class player who could score a 35 yarder against Arsenal. The facts have a foundation but could it happen? We?ll let him have a go and see what happens.

As for the people in Kirkby....My family are from there and to be honest, I never really hear anything bad said about the move. What I did hear is that (my figures are well out by the way) when those survays were sent out with the scarmongering "hooligans will invade your town" video (like it doesnt have its fair share), from about, say, 5,000 or so, only about less than 1,000 came back saying "we dont want this".

It hurts my head really. Its very messy until the Kirkby move is shown and genuine cast iron facts and figures are shown. Something needs to be sorted or we?ll be having termites chewing are ankles at Goodison in 2011.
David Thompson
3   Posted 28/04/2008 at 20:29:47

Report abuse


To correct a few points in your article:

1. there is no plan to increase the frequency of local train services. It isn?t possible.

2. There is no plan to widen roads.

3. There is currently no plan to build Merseytram

4. There is no evidence that the new stadium will a) increase the number of spectators and b) increase revenue - no studies have been undertaken to determine the market.

Why should KEIOC or any other fans come up with a detailed costing for the redevelopment of Goodison? The club should have done that using proper independent sources prior to the vote, and given people a propoer choice. Instead, we were told Kirkby was free and Goodison was too expensive. We now know Kirkby being free was a lie ? why wasn?t the information about Goodison. After all, the club have hardly been impartial in the whole matter.

No plan B, remember. No alternative.
Les Anderson
4   Posted 28/04/2008 at 20:50:00

Report abuse

I think Brian has hit the nail on the head. Like it or not Kirkby may be the best option for Everton (even with transport, cost etc) BUT what I think we all want is to know that all options have been looked at, and least an accurate, realistic estimate so we know.

KEIOC have done some good stuff, but they seem to be selective in the info they provide (like only parts of the HOK report not the whole) in the same way the club have.

Dave, there are plans for rail improvements in kirkby and the tram, look in the Merseyside LTP, but like everything there's no money from the government for it!!!!

There are plenty of plans out there but if they don?t have cash or the planing permission they are nothing more than paper.
Chris Taggart
5   Posted 28/04/2008 at 21:01:23

Report abuse

The redevelopment of St James Park cost 42 million ten years ago which increased capacity of around 15,000 seats. What's that in today's money, considering that a redevelopment of Goodison would be a similar project?

KEIOC are opposition just as Wollfie Smith was to the then government, they have the luxury of not having to finance any "plan B" and can therefore shout loudest regarding any hairbrained scheme

I would like to propose we build our stadium on the fiveways roundabout its big enough and has decent transport links (see it's easy)

The Board unfortunately don't have that luxury.

David Thompson
6   Posted 28/04/2008 at 21:14:39

Report abuse

Les, The plan for rail improvement at Kirkby is the building of a station on the line connecting Wigan and Kirkby. It will make very little difference to the vast majority of fans, and even SDG pay very little attention to it. Brian said there were plans to increase the frequency of the trains. That is simply not true. It is a single track and the frequency cannot be increased. They are going to increase the number of carriages and crush load them, however.

If there is no money from the the Government, Merseytram isn’t going to happen, and even if there is money from the government, it also requires the commitment of the other Merseyside boroughs who contribute to Merseytravel. Since they are wholly opposed to the whole development, and have budget problems of their own, it’s simply not going to happen.

The revised Transport Asssessment has addressed some of the issues raised in the original, but nevertheless, remains so flawed as to be worthless.
Les Anderson
7   Posted 28/04/2008 at 21:23:56

Report abuse

The improvement is to extend the electrification to Headbolt Lane towards wigan (part of a longer aim to electrify all the way). At the moment theres nothing firmed up in design as far as i know, likely on a simple 3rd rail laying along existing tract. But the station location at Headbolt has 2 tracks and trains could be "stacked" ready for the end of the game.

I agree the current TA is flawed, theres no mention of dropping off/pick up trips (I reckon this could account for at least 10% of modal share being so close to the motorway). The fact that for many EFC games (evening, sunday 4pm KO?s) a huge car park (retail) next to it will be empty when it could be used is a joke.

To many things are assumed based on Arsenals ground, and transportwise comparing anything in london to somewhere else in the country (espcially NW) is not realistic.

The trams an interesting one, As I?ve said SDG are the consultants on this and the stadium . The other Mersey authorities might have to bite the bullet on it, especially LCC as it ticks so many boxes.
Vince Hindson
8   Posted 28/04/2008 at 21:59:06

Report abuse

Want to know what will happen? When the RS owners finally get themselves sorted out, they (whatever foreign owners they end up with) will not be able to understand why two clubs who live next door to each other and both need new stadia, can?t share. BK will bite their hand off at the offer - a shared 60,000-seater stadium.

It’s going to happen, despite what you may think today.
Kevin Mitchell
9   Posted 28/04/2008 at 22:32:57

Report abuse

What is the point of going to Kirkby when the majority of match going Evertonians dont want it? We get people on here trying to justify why it all adds up money wise. Even if they were building the Noucamp and it was free it still wouldn?t add up why were going to Kirkby.
Kenwright one of us, you must be joking.
Matt Willey
10   Posted 29/04/2008 at 00:04:04

Report abuse

Hey, Don’t be confused, the whole concept of Everton moving to Kirkby is ridiculous.

If Everton move to Kirkby the club will disappear into obscurity, maybe not immediately but certainly over time... why would anyone want to move out of a world famous, thriving and happening City to a backwater town like Kirkby ? ... one reason that I have heard rumoured is that someone is lining their own pocket (but that is total conjecture and does not necessarily represent my own opinion).

The amount of ’misinformation’ and propaganda is frankly disturbing. The way the project has been handled in the media is reminiscent of some shady politician desperately trying to spin themselves out of a self inflicted mess... either that, or it is amateur PR gone very, very wrong.

The supporters deserved transparency in the process, the reasons and the background research that should have been conducted behind the move. Instead they have been offered cheap rhetoric and spin...
But the ’mandate’ was won so who gives a toss eh ? where are all the reassuring video clips and flashy stadium brochures now ? It’s a done deal and it always was ... who has been ’done’ and who has ’dealed’ may soon become apparent...

Ciaran Duff
11   Posted 29/04/2008 at 01:17:49

Report abuse

Hi Brian,
A reasoned and balanced argument re Kirkby! Strange ;-)

IMHO, Kirkby seems the lesser of the proposed evils. It may not be ideal but given our financial position I cannot see how any of the other options could possibly be more viable.
I did think that a ground share would be a better idea but the RS rejected that option. Given how their stadium project is going, the rising costs and the political in-fighting then maybe we were better off without them!
Chris Briddon
12   Posted 29/04/2008 at 08:54:57

Report abuse

I just love the way that the anti-Kirkby people come on here with their fantastic conjecture with no fact to back it up. Look at KEIOCs latest publicity poster - they are so short of facts they have to quote themselves as evidence!.

David - you ask why KEIOC should provide costings for the re-development of Goodison - well prehaps the reason is that without them you have no arguement, just emotional outpourings.
If somebody from KEIOC (or similar) put together a realistic costing assessment that showed they could re-develop Goodison effectively for the same price then maybe Yes voters may listen a bit more. At the moment all they manage to do is hurl insults at anybody who disagrees and spout drivel with no factual basis.

Kevin - so the majority of match going Evertonians don’t want to move to Kirkby - well you must have had a different vote to me then cos the one I saw had a majority in favour.

Kirkby may not appear to be the ideal option but at present it is the onlty option to keep us competitive with the topend of the premiership on a commerical scale.
When it comes to cmmercial activities - location isn’t relevant, I have been to a number of events at Bramall Lane in Sheffield which is in the middle of a fairly run-down part of the city. Once you are inside you could be anywhere its the facilities that count
Brian Baker
13   Posted 29/04/2008 at 09:03:49

Report abuse

Dave Wilson. My mum got her loft extention. Apparently the old boy from down the road is well known to the council as a trouble maker, as he complains about anything and everything.

And after reading what everyone has written, I am still none the wiser. Maybe if I shut my eyes and cross my fingers everything will turn out ok.
Gareth Humphreys
14   Posted 29/04/2008 at 09:48:50

Report abuse

Brian I’m also confused. Confused about the following.

(1) How the board can claim £78m for a stadium that at least 40% of those ballotted do not want is the deal of the century.

(2) I’m confused how EFC benfited from the period of exclusivity.

(3) I’m confused why the board haven’t seen what they can do at Goodison for £78m.

(4) I’m confused why the silence coming from Goodison is deafening.

Brian Baker
15   Posted 29/04/2008 at 10:08:54

Report abuse

Interesting on the £78 Million. What could you do with £78Million?

You could put a second tier on the Park-end stand, increasing capaicity to 55,000, upgrade safety in the other stands. Renew and increase the capicty of the toilet facilities.

You could give it all to Davey to bolster the squad, and pave the way for champions league football and our first trophy since 1995.

Or use it for our proposed move to Kirkby.

No one has told me were £78 million will come from?
Gareth Humphreys
16   Posted 29/04/2008 at 10:21:44

Report abuse

Brian my thoughts exactly.

I’m all in favour of a move if its undeinably the right thing to do but there are so many issues with Kirkby that the board are unwilling to answer.

I say do with Goodison what Davey is doing with the team. Piece by piece, bit by bit, stand by stand.
Danny Naylor
17   Posted 29/04/2008 at 10:22:49

Report abuse

Brain Baker - just thowing up some questions really.

Wouldn't re-development take more time and generate less income than building another stadium while keeping Goodison running while its built?

Doesn't Goodison need a major overhaul? Obstructed views moved, all the wood ripped out and replaced, new toilets etc - all this would be built throughout a season while we?re playing knocking attendences down?

How much does the club get for selling the land?

I remember when the moved was proposed and it was said that - Its a deliverable move, meaning it can happen if all goes right. It will leave managable dept, not that it was free (£80mill is free in todays climate compared to the RS £800mill stadium).

I don't buy that the board want to line their pockets - they can do that in more profitable ways (selling ownershio, merchandise deals etc).

Tesco?s are a reptiuble brand - they made £11.5 billion last year in the UK. With someone like that on board, Everton can generate cash easily from 3rd parties to pay whatever cost they can and manage the repayment.

As for transport - I know for a fact a tram system plan has been in place for Liverpool to Kirkby for knocking on 11 years.

Not jumping on bandwagons or anything, just throwing up questions really.
Brian Baker
18   Posted 29/04/2008 at 10:43:28

Report abuse

There are all kinds of things that could happen, if people knew a new stadium was opening in 2011.

How about the club providing a ’free’ shuttle bus service from Hood Street to the new ground for all home games.

I have seen such a scheme operating for big events like the Farnborough air show, which has 250,000+ attending, where free buses run a regular service to local railway stations and the show.
Tom Hughes
19   Posted 29/04/2008 at 10:55:45

Report abuse

Chris Briddon,
I really don?t see any point in your post. You demand "facts" whilst blissfully ignoring the one that what you voted for no longer exists. Why aren?t you demanding an explanation from KW as to why his "facts" seem rather wayward now? In the meantime however, why don?t you state which of KEIOC?s "facts" you disagree with?

Surely the reason why Everton should have had full redevelopment costs etc is that you would expect them to have a detailed knowledge of costing for all options in order to make any comparison? Isn?t that what they said they had pre-vote in stating that they had "exhausted all options". FACT is they didn?t even have ANY feasibility study done till after the vote, and even then it was carried out by Tesco?s consultant. This is all in the public domain.

Above every other building type location is essential for a stadium where efficient mass-people movement is prerequisite. What we all take for granted at GP (getting to and from it) and any other ground has evolved over generations, and is not simply something that can be taken for granted...... build it and they?ll find their own way. Read the transport plan.... it?s laughable, at least it would be if it wasn?t so important. You don?t have to read between the lines to see that Kirkby is one of the least accessible sites for Evertonians, an absolute logistical nightmare that the transport planners are trying ever trick in the book to make work. Park and ride was shot down by Merseytravel before the ink dried on the last revision, it?s now half park and walk, oh and cycle. I note that your only comparison is Bramall Lane which is in Sheffield?s city-centre.
Will Brennan
20   Posted 29/04/2008 at 11:19:52

Report abuse

Chris Briddon, have you read the government inspectors comments this morning ? Enough said. Not even a mid level stadium !
Danny Naylor
21   Posted 29/04/2008 at 12:14:37

Report abuse

How is a 15-20 minute drive from the city centre to Kirkby a impossible place to travel to? The problem is accomodating mass public not whether or not its a hard place to get to.

Can it be resolved and accomadated? Possibly.

Will it change peoples minds? Possibly not IMO. Because it's outside the city
Tom Hughes
22   Posted 29/04/2008 at 12:47:40

Report abuse

It’s only a 15-20min car journey if the roads are clear (and you jump all the lights). With the vast majority of a 40-55,000 crowd travelling predominently in the same direction, on the very limited number of roads and public transport that serves Kirkby from Liverpool, they will certainly not be able to do it in that time, and will not be able access that site easily if at all..... hence the multiple revision transport plan that recognises this, and requires thousands to park on the Liverpool side of the M57 since the road capacities simply wont allow the numbers through to the stadium in the time windows required. Even then, parking will be severely limited on the Kirkby side, and almost non-existent near the stadium. More importantly, at the end of the match when everyone leaves together the gridlock will be compounded further. For an example try Bolton’s stadium which has a station right on its doorstep, a motorway and dual carriageways serving it.
Brian Baker
23   Posted 29/04/2008 at 13:31:24

Report abuse

Tom Hughes. Surely most of those driving to a game would not be coming from the city centre. Those coming from the city centre would mostly be relying on public transport, which is where a ’free’ bus service would give benefit.
David Thompson
24   Posted 29/04/2008 at 13:20:48

Report abuse

Danny...have you read anything at all during the past 9 months since this farce was first floated?

The latest revision of the Transport assessment requires Everton to register to become a bus company. They plan to operate 67 buses on 15 routes from/to various locations in the area, some making multiple journeys. They plan to operate a further 90 buses on Park & Ride schemes, making it the largest P&R scheme in the country but a huge margin.

In all, before and after every match, they expect 19,600 people to use the bus station they plan to build. The bus station will have 30 bays, and each bus is expected to carry 60 passengers on each journey. 325 bus movements pre match and 325 post match. If all goes to plan - and I mean like clockwork - they will pick up 1,800 passengers every 7.5 minutes. You can work out for yourself how long it will take to clear the queue.

There is just one problem. They can’t find the buses in midweek, and for Saturday’s they will have to hire them fromas far away as Manchester, Blackburn and Chester, assuming the bus companies there don’t have anything else to do with them - all this at extra cost because of the distance.

At the same time, Park & Walk has been extended to 45 minutes from the stadium.

The worst thing is that this is a new build. A blank canvas.

Think about the last time you were at Goodison. Where were you 45 minutes after leaving the ground? At Kirkby, there is a pretty good chance you will still be in a queue about 10 minutes away 45 minutes after the end of the game.

A 15 minute drive from town?

If only....
David Thompson
25   Posted 29/04/2008 at 13:35:44

Report abuse

Brian,... I hope the above answers your question about a ’free bus’ from town!
Danny Naylor
26   Posted 29/04/2008 at 13:32:38

Report abuse

Its not 20 mins jumping lights etc - I got bus from Kirkby town Centre to Goodison (with a short 5 mins walk to the ground) when we played Sunderland on a saturday. Was on the bus for 2:00pm and was in the ground by 2:50pm (which included a piss pit stop).

I did say that 40-50 thousand fans doing the same thing/same route is different, but all I?m saying is that its not impossible to sort out.

The propsals can change, its not set in stone. If parking/travel is a major problem in Kirkby itself they will sort out ways to accomodate. The board won't be blind to move somewhere where transport and access is terrible and strangle any income it will get.

If it can't be solved then it will fall through, its simple as IMO. Maybe I?m just an optomist, but its not the first time a proposed move to kirkby has been touted so they?ll have over 10 years of plans and schemes to wade through.
David Thompson
27   Posted 29/04/2008 at 13:47:52

Report abuse

Danny...the transport proposals have already changed. They are trying to sort out ways to accommodate them, hence the revision to 45 minutes for Park and Walk. In the end, what are they to do - keep extending to 60 mins, 90 mins walk?

Keith Wyness said this stadium would have the best transport links of any stadium in the North West, if not the country.

Here we are 9 months down the line, and it’s becoming more of a shambles. If he had the details of the best transport links, why haven’t they been submitted?

Why on earth do people think it will just ’get sorted out’?

Take a look at the problems surrounding The Emirates stadium transport situation.

Why on earth do you trust the board of Everton to get it right, when they have continually lied to you over this move?

Jay Harris
28   Posted 29/04/2008 at 13:34:12

Report abuse

Only thing I wish to add to an evergrowing level of contributions to this debate is the parking issue and the land.

There will be a 2 mile radius NO parking limit.

Thats at least a 4 mile round trip per game(if you are lucky enough to park 2 miles away) which will be too much of a struggle for many of our older supporters and would not have great appeal for the younger ones either.

I cant even anticpate walking in the pissing down rain for 40 minutes to a Tesco car park but thereagain I could always get a bike and join the other 999 that Wyness has suggested will cycle to the ground.

As for the land that everyone keeps saying is free.The land will not be ours it will be leased and is apparently contaminated land that will cost EFC millions to prepare for a stadium build.

Now did KW put that in his propoganda or does he expect to poison our first matchgoing crowd.
Danny Naylor
29   Posted 29/04/2008 at 14:03:30

Report abuse

The reason why people say they?ll "sort it out" is because they have to, and this takes time.

Wouldn't you rather wait 1-2 years for an answer to the problem or 10 minutes for a estimate full of holes? Which is what we?ve got, estimates full of holes. What has been greenlit? What has been set in stone? Little to nothing. It takes time.

Why do I trust the board? Erm.. beacuse they run the club, and I rather listen to them than Joe Schmoe in the pub over business dealing with the club.

All I?m saying is that, if it wasn't do-able it wouldn't be.

The transport with the Emirates doesn't stop it making the money it does and selling out week in week out.

It's braindead to think that a club are willing to relocate to a location that is impossible to get to IMO.

If it goes tits up, it goes tits up, but it will do so before a brick has been moved from Goodison and not after I feel.
Keith Menzies
30   Posted 29/04/2008 at 14:06:18

Report abuse

Chris Bidden:
"anti-Kirkby people come on here with their fantastic conjecture with no fact to back it up."

The only fantastic conjecture with no facts to back it up has come from Keith Wyness and his cronies. It should be the club?s responsibility to examine all options and make the best choice for the future of the club, its fans, its team. It just hasn?t happened.

Ony independent fans? groups have even tried to explore viable alternatives. Hats off to them in my opinion. Shame on the club.

What the club has done is run a clever media campaign to hoodwink the loyal supporters. No decent facts, statistics etc that stood up to scrutiny were made available before the vote. Quite the opposite. Pretty pictures and rhetoric.

My personal belief is that Kirkby EFC will not happen. If it does go ahead it will be a disaster for the club. We will have become officially second rate.
Jay Harris
31   Posted 29/04/2008 at 15:59:50

Report abuse

Keith make that 3rd rate which is about the level of our board.

Danny Naylor if you trust this board it explains a lot.

BK - "The check will be in the bank in the morning"(Fortress sports fund)
"EFC have the money ringfenced"(Kings Dock Fiasco).
"I would not let Rooney leave for 50 million"(NO he let him leave for half that)
"I have been looking for investors 24/7" for the past 5 years (Look at EFC?s proposals to Kirkby where it actually states the current directors have no intention of diluting their shareholding to attract investment for the stadium proposal).

They are just a pair of lying, cheating charlatans.
KW has a known and proven history of lying and manipulating. (Just read his history at Aberdeen and elsewhere, where they were glad to see the back of him.)
danny naylor
32   Posted 29/04/2008 at 16:31:05

Report abuse

We’re in the best potition financially, commercially than we have been for 10 years, and are moving forward in the league.

Yes, the board are utter shite bags for this.
Jay Harris
33   Posted 29/04/2008 at 16:44:08

Report abuse

Danny Naylor,
That's utter shite.
Have you read recent EFC report and accounts. We are still making operating losses. Our commercial(Non gate receipt) income is the worst in the top half of the prem. We have sold or mortgaged all of the assets that BK inherited.(Future Season ticket sales,GP,Sefton training ground etc.)

Our Chief executive is taking £400k per year as opposed to less than £100k that Michael Dunford got.

And you are right ? the board are utter shitebags for that.
EJ Ruane
34   Posted 29/04/2008 at 18:51:38

Report abuse

There are people posting here, who you can almost hear shouting " TOUCHE!!" and "TAKE THAT!" each time they point out some ’mistake’ KEIOC make.

I’m baffled as to why.

KEIOC, are as far as I’m aware, a bunch of people who set up to fight against something they believe in.

As (I’m guessing) they’re amateurs, I expect them to make mistakes and get things wrong, but, as I happen to believe what they believe, they have my support and backing in spite of this.

Personally I’m suspicious of anyone posting who, as a way of answering criticism of the PROVEN awful performance of Wyness/Kenwright/Everton etc, seek to respond denigrating a body made up of amatuer volunteers.

For me it boils down to this.

KEIOC (as far as I know) are not receiving £400,000 a year of Everton FC cash.

Consequently they don’t have to justify themselves or their performance to anyone.

Those ’running’ Everton on the other (greasy)


Tom Hughes
35   Posted 29/04/2008 at 19:41:55

Report abuse

Spot on IMHO!
Eric Holland
36   Posted 29/04/2008 at 21:49:49

Report abuse

Why is it that one moment the No brigade are spouting off how they won't be going to the match any more. And then they are worried how Kirkby is going to cope with the influx of 50,000 fans? If there is so many of the NO NO brigade not going to the match, there will be no problem with transport or parking. If we are to believe the utter nonsense that the majority of match going supporters will not travel to the wilderness that is Kirkby. We can only expect 15,000 at each game . Problem solved.
Brian Donnelly
37   Posted 29/04/2008 at 22:31:02

Report abuse

Eric Holland, you are a genius. You don?t work for EFC do you?

Yes 15,000 fans and there won?t be any transport problems. They just have to pay £120 each per game and the problem is solved. I can see Wyness latching on to that idea ?mind you it would be one of his better ideas.

Eric Holland
38   Posted 29/04/2008 at 22:40:10

Report abuse

Yes Brian I must be a genius.
I can get to Kirkby I will be going to Kirkby as I expect most of the wingers on here will do so eventually.
Robert Carney
39   Posted 29/04/2008 at 22:55:49

Report abuse

This is a city that has received more trauma than any other due to bad logistics at a stadium (Hillsborough and Heysel). It also affected family?s and football supporters countrywide.

Has safety taken a back window these days? It is clear that the transport structure is totally unsuitable. Imagine the crush for trains and buses that will follow. For all you older fans you will remember it was the norm and our luck rode it.. Youngsters have never come across it and will not know how to handle it. Look at the fools following Liverpool to this day without tickets to big games. I fear another disaster around the corner.

Ed Fitzgerald
40   Posted 29/04/2008 at 23:14:47

Report abuse


Let?s hope for your sake and others your words don?t ring true about the 15,000 true blues who voted for Kirkby being the only ones going. You comment about No voters who will cave into the allure of all things Blue and White with a nice red TESCO across the middle are based on what evidence exactly? Eh when was the last time the club comprehensively pissed off a good 40% or 10,000 of our fan base?

Eric it looks like you had better add ESP to your considerable list of talents. I bow to your telepathic powers (so tell me what I am thinking of you now!). I am guided by your sagacious advice and find myself powerless to resist, must go to Kirkby, must go to Kirkby, it?s the deal of the century; Kenwright is trustworthy ? no still not working.
Brian Donnelly
41   Posted 29/04/2008 at 23:46:25

Report abuse

Eric, no doubt many of us will end up at Kirkby for some of the matches. The word some as opposed to all, is the main point. This means that EFC have to attract fans to replace people like myself (let?s say 26 home games this season down to about 8 at Kirkby), whilst also getting another 11,000 fans from somewhere ? they need about 47,000 average.

It doesn?t stack up ? you could buy season tickets for the park end (no posts) at Xmas. We haven?t got a waiting list of fans ?just where are all these fans coming from?

Jay Harris
42   Posted 30/04/2008 at 01:37:48

Report abuse

I just wish some of the pro-Kirkby brigade would explain how the extra £20 million per year is going to come about. £10 million to service the loan interest and £10 million extra for players. That;' what we were promised.

Now let's see... will it come from extra corporate events? Highly unlikely given its location and lack of infrastructure. Will it come from extra gate receipts? Well let's assume the average season attendance remains the same initially(We will lose some and may gain some) and we get extra revenue from higher ticket prices lets optimisticallly assume £2.5 million.(Although the loan will be securitised on this)

And let's say we get £2.5 million from naming rights for 5 to 7 years..(Although the loan will be securitised on this too).

Let say we improve sponsorship at this shiny new stadium giving us an extra £1 million a year...(Although the loan will be securitised on this too).

Now that leaves a shortfall of £4 million per year to be made up before we can even think about the players fund.Can some of the sensible yes voters please explain where I am wrong and where Wyness is right. And please remember if we do not get £52 million worth of retail enabling partners the shortfall will need significantly more than £10 mill per year in interest repayments.

Deal of the Century... or Crime of the Century?
Jay Harris
43   Posted 30/04/2008 at 02:56:40

Report abuse

Just read extracts from the CABE report.

This is the group that advises the government on large scale development.

"We are concerned that the stadium design is being delivered by a Design and Build contractor. It is our view that Design and Build contracts can produce successful outcomes only when high quality design is embedded in the process; we do not feel that this has been achieved in this case.

"We are not convinced by this masterplan that there is a clear understanding of the space required for managing large crowds converging on the stadium. Also, we do not feel that an inspiring sense of arrival, as one would expect to have upon approaching a stadium of this size and significance, has been achieved. This stadium will be a prominent figure in the landscape in all directions, however, the pedestrian approaches to the stadium lack coherence, meandering from the railway station or drifting across car parks. On match days, the continued to operation of all uses appears likely to be controlled by crude boundary treatments."

.... and the closing paragraph:

"Whilst we welcome the development of the proposed uses on this site we feel that this scheme is, at best, a lost opportunity. The scheme proposed will have a detrimental impact on the town and is not of a standard that Kirkby deserves. This scheme does not meet the criteria in terms of design quality set out in PPS1 and we do not think that it should receive planning permission."

"World class stadium"

"Virtually free"

"The deal of the century"

Would you buy a used car from this man?

Robert Carney
44   Posted 30/04/2008 at 18:08:50

Report abuse

Has anyone got any positive take on this coming fiasco? The more we read and learn the worse it gets.
Eric Holland
45   Posted 30/04/2008 at 18:06:57

Report abuse

You are all so fucking bothered about the club. The club means Everton Football Club. Not Goodison Park; not County Road and all the pubs and parking in the streets close by, or the mile walk to the nearest station.

Now don't get me wrong here, I have been watching Everton at Goodison Park since it was 6d to get in the boys pen, if someone could come up with a definite alternative to Kirkby then great, let's go for it.

The thing is it's all shite, we could do this and that, redevelop Goodison... it won't work ? we don?t have enough time or money. Our team has come a long way in the last few years, but we are still miles behind the top three and you only have to switch the telly on tonight to see what the RS are up to again. Money is what we need lots and lots of money and if it does not materialize in the next couple of years, it just won't happen for us and we will be behind even more clubs with there billionaire backers.

Ron Leith
46   Posted 30/04/2008 at 19:43:21

Report abuse

Lets get a new staduim from some dodgy Americans. They come in pairs and fear for their wives lives. They may sell out to some big DIC consorteum from the Middle East. Then they could buy us out and make us as big as Man City. Or maybe not, maybe we are better off with our Board and Tesco.
Tom Hughes
47   Posted 30/04/2008 at 20:19:54

Report abuse


"The thing is its all shite we could do this and that redevelop goodison, it wont work we don?t have enough time or money. "

Why have most clubs chose to redevelop rather than relocate? Could it be because it can be done in affordable chunks, enabling new incomes from new facilities/capacity to help fund subsequent developments. If we don’t have enough money to redevelop where are we getting £78m+ from? What has time got to do with it? GP can be extended with little or no loss in capacity, so time is not necessarily a factor at all.
Eric Holland
48   Posted 30/04/2008 at 21:51:14

Report abuse

"Why have most clubs chose to redevelop rather than relocate"
Please elaborate Tom and tell me which clubs of any significance, have redeveloped a near derelict stadium recently.
Tom Hughes
49   Posted 30/04/2008 at 22:22:17

Report abuse

Derelict? Are you sure?
Chelsea, Man Utd, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Newcastle, Birmingham, Blackburn, Charlton, West Brom, West Ham, Sheff Wed, Sheff Utd, Leeds and many many more....... Actually Eric, it would be quicker for me to name the handful who have moved in comparison. Then we could go around Europe..... The San Siro, Bernabeu, Nou Camp, Rome’s Olympic stadium, Most of the German World Cup stadia..... all developed incrimentally but sometimes substantially.
Of course not all these redevelopments have been done well, but nor have all the new builds. Now errors such as those made at Anfield (another redeveloped stadium) can be avoided given the stadium design experience gained in recent years in this country. EFC can benefit from this all because the stadium you describe as "derelict" was able to satisfy all the Taylor reports requirements and still yield a capacity of 40k with very little work required compared to practically all other stadia in the country. Well done Mr Leitch I say, and you should wash your mouth out sir ;) (Feeling fairly jovial just now, and can’t imagine why!)
Robert Carney
50   Posted 30/04/2008 at 22:46:17

Report abuse

I hope the fools on here do not wear you down Tom. For over twelve months they have failed to listen to reasoned debate and factual information.<[>If you or your friends are successful in turning this debacle round, present and future generations will have a huge burden of thanks to shoulder. There may even be an alternative to the grossly unfair Royal recognition coming your way. I am sure genuine football fans in this country will excel in naming the aforementioned with aplomb.
Ed Fitzgerald
51   Posted 30/04/2008 at 22:27:40

Report abuse

Eric you state that - You are all so fucking bothered about the club.

You are right all the no voters you attempt to deride are bothered about the club. The supporters are the club; they are its past, present and future. The ground could be redeveloped; we could find another site in the City. The point is the exclusivity agreement prevents us from even engaging in thinking of any other direction. I would love to see the details of the agreement if there is nothing to hide it would surely be a PR masterstroke and silence those irritating critics of BK and KW. So let?s see it.

The reasons I suspect people frequent Toffeeweb posting articles that are questioning the Kirkby move is that they care passionately about the long term future of the club. Of course I want to compete for trophies my concern about Kirkby is that it will jeopardise that goal for future generations of blues and will actually jeopardise the chance that there WILL be future generations of Evertonians.

Genius, Telepathy and Purity ? Shame humility is not one of your qualities Eric?
Jay Harris
52   Posted 30/04/2008 at 23:21:19

Report abuse

Perhaps you could answer this question I asked earlier and am still waiting a response on.

I just wish some of the pro-Kirkby brigade would explain how the extra £20 million per year is going to come about. £10 million to service the loan interest and £10 million extra for players. That?s what we were promised.

Now let?s see... will it come from extra corporate events? Highly unlikely given its location and lack of infrastructure. Will it come from extra gate receipts? Well let?s assume the average season attendance remains the same initially(We will lose some and may gain some) and we get extra revenue from higher ticket prices lets optimisticallly assume £2.5 million.(Although the loan will be securitised on this)

And let?s say we get £2.5 million from naming rights for 5 to 7 years..(Although the loan will be securitised on this too).

Let say we improve sponsorship at this shiny new stadium giving us an extra £1 million a year...(Although the loan will be securitised on this too).

Now that leaves a shortfall of £4 million per year to be made up before we can even think about the players fund.

Can some of the sensible yes voters please explain where I am wrong and where Wyness is right.

And please remember if we do not get £52 million worth of retail enabling partners the shortfall will need significantly more than £10 mill per year in interest repayments.

Deal of the Century... or Crime of the Century?
Eric Holland
53   Posted 30/04/2008 at 23:12:40

Report abuse

Chelsea billionaire, Man Utd billionaire, Tottenham billionaire, Aston Villa billionaire, Newcastle I agree with you on this one great stadium crap team, Birmingham, Blackburn, Charlton, West Brom, West Ham, Sheff Wed, Sheff Utd, Leeds I did say "clubs of any significance" Utd Great stadium to start with,
Chelsea looking to relocate. Villa, Spurs, no dramatic changes to either stadium.
Ed Looking for spelling mistakes? and you talk of humility! Get a life.
Tom Hughes
54   Posted 01/05/2008 at 00:09:26

Report abuse

You asked what grounds had been redeveloped. I just demonstrated that most have been redeveloped ahead of relocating. But for your info.... Man Utd redeveloped Old trafford before the Billionaires moved in. In fact they did it once, then did it again with only the corner sections completed in Glazers tenure. Chelsea had practically finished theirs before Abromovich, and his ambitions seem greater than the 43k capacity that would have appeared sufficient before their success. They now have an asset to sell, on one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in the capital, we don’t. Tottenham and Aston Villa also redeveloped before the billionaires came knocking (I’m not sure Villa’s owner is a Billionaire). Incidentally, Villa and Spurs built 3 new stands each, I’d say that was pretty dramatic change-wise. As I said there are many more who have redeveloped ahead of relocating, and this is also mirrored in Europe. That is not to say I’m anti-move per se.
Ed Fitzgerald
55   Posted 01/05/2008 at 13:52:32

Report abuse

I spent the time looking up whether there was a word "prestine"! so was not looking for errors at all.

Don't be so touchy, it is you who infer that No voters don't really care about the club a la

"You are all so fucking bothered about the club."

That's the attitude what winds me up ? you seem to assert you hold the moral high ground because you are pro-Kirkby.

Peter Howard
56   Posted 01/05/2008 at 15:45:30

Report abuse

Tom, weren?t Chelsea within twenty-four hours of administration when Abramovitch took over?
Eric Holland
57   Posted 01/05/2008 at 21:27:53

Report abuse

Ed, I did not say you don’t care about the club in fact I think you are obviously very passionate about our club. its just that everyone is entitled to there opinion and we will have to beg to differ on ours.
Tom, I am not totally pro Kirkby it is just that I have not come across anything else to convince me that another location or relocation is viable. I am sorry to say that Goodison is no longer a ground to be proud of. I am a season ticket holder with my 8 year old son and every game we look around and see a ground that is not up to premiership standard.
If we don’t strike while the iron is hot we could be left far behind the clubs emerging behind us.
Now I don’t think Kirkby is the be all and end all
but it will take us up the ladder in the right direction.
plus I will be able to drop the wife at Tescos while we go to the match, and that will save me 2 hours in the week for some spelling practice.
Jay Harris
58   Posted 02/05/2008 at 00:51:14

Report abuse

good post but would you please say which Premier League grounds are better than Goodison and why?
Tom Hughes
59   Posted 02/05/2008 at 14:14:37

Report abuse


"I am not totally pro Kirkby it is just that I have not come across anything else to convince me that another location or relocation is viable."

I think you’ll find that exclusivity doesn’t really allow viable options to blossom. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There is increasingly overwhelming evidence that Kirkby’s viability is questionable, and certainly wouldn’t stand up against a properly explored option.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to Column articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.

© ToffeeWeb

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.