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

The 35th Option?

By Gary Sedgwick :  11/06/2008 :  Comments (62) :
I am a Blue, through and through. I was born in a suburb of Preston in 1967. The closest I came in my life to living within the boundaries of the City of Liverpool was when my family lived in Southport and Burscough. I watch THE team, MY team, whenever possible in my new country of residence, the USA. I cannot call the USA my home country because England will be forever my home in my heart.

I pay extra to receive ?Setanta Sports? from my satellite TV provider, Dish Network. I probably get to see more Blues games here than you folks do back home. Along with FSC I have the availability to see 9/10 EPL games each weekend of the season.

I was fortunate my Dad made me a blue. I do not know why he followed the Blues and to be honest still do not... but I still remember the days when sports coverage was reports in the Sunday papers. I remember cutting articles from those papers into my scrapbook. Andy King pictures scoring against Bristol City. Bob with his then unheard of 30 league goals in a season.

My Dad was with me at my first game at GP, a trip organized by my local Sunday League U16s team. The coach driver got lost on the way ? can you believe it! We were seated in the Lower Bullen?s right alongside the goal line. When Rob Wakenshaw scored I was in heaven especially as it was against Man Utd .

From the next season on me and Dad were watching the Blues whenever we could ? from 1985 through to 1993 ? years of heaven and hell. We never saw the Blues pick up a trophy live ? unless the Charity Shield counts? We saw many of them!

After a few matches when we sat in the Top Balcony with its obstructed views we convinced others to join us. We converted a United follower to EFC. We almost converted a Stoke City supporter to be one of us. He never did, being loyal to Stoke, but he still went to the games with us. From then on we populated the terraces, Lower Gladys Street or the Paddock/Enclosure below the Main Stand. Goodison was rocking; it was the place to be. Should it still be?

I was not born within the Liverpool City boundaries but I class myself as an Evertonian, through and through. I cannot attend games as I used to obviously. I still watch games on TV whenever I can at my expense.

Previously I posted an article titled ?Merseyside? on this site and it generated controlled debate. It was posted as an insider looking out. I post this time as an outsider looking in.

Following all the discussions regarding the ground move on TW I clicked on a link from my portal to the pages of the newspapers of Merseyside. (I choose to use the term Merseyside rather than Liverpool.) A headline today reads: "Everton's Kirkby stadium: All eyes now on public inquiry calls". I click on the link as written in the Echo.

I read the article neutrally until I read the second paragraph under the title: THE CASE FOR The time is right for us. The first paragraph maintains my neutral viewpoint but the second paragraph just blows my mind!

?This is the 35th option that was looked at. When we say it is the deal of the century, it is because it is very hard to achieve what has come about with this application.?

35th option??? Call me naïve but when you buy a new home do you not start out looking for the best one first? I know I did when we bought our house. We were lucky because our first option turned out to be the best option we had. Would we have gone down the list to number 35? I do not think so!

Until I read this statement from Kieth Wyness, I thought Kirkby, from an outsider?s position looking inwards, was a step forward for the Blues. Now I do not. How can we settle for a home outside Goodison that ranks 35th in the options looked at?Anything with a single digit I could digest but 35??? Come on?

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 Underwood
1   Posted 11/06/2008 at 06:49:27

Report abuse

Just re-read the passage and I get the impression that what they were saying was that they had looked at 35 potential options not that this was the 35th choice. If they had only looked at 2 sites and decided Kirkby was the place to go then that would be negligence. Looking at an exhaustive list of 35 then deciding that this is the best deal seems a reasonable course of action for such a big move.

Whether you agree or not with the move, surely you would want them to look into as many options as possible.
Dave Wilson
2   Posted 11/06/2008 at 07:08:27

Report abuse

They havent looked at other options outside Kirkby
It just means they have rejigged the Kirkby plans 35 times

They could do that another 35million times,but it will NEVER be right
Neil Quinn
3   Posted 11/06/2008 at 08:28:58

Report abuse

I remember the Andy King goals against Bristol City. I hat trick if I’m not mistaken & a thunderbolt free-kick from Billy Wright gave us a 4-1 win.

Back to the subject...I’d love to know who compiled that list & how many were actually "looked at".
Andy Willox
4   Posted 11/06/2008 at 09:58:40

Report abuse

Phil, that?s it exactly. My surprise was that my home address wasn?t on there because I?m sure I saw fatpants Wyness with a tape measure outside a couple of years ago!
The contempt with which the supporters are and have been treated has driven a huge wedge between me and my club. Seriously.
Chris Briddon
5   Posted 11/06/2008 at 10:10:23

Report abuse

I am amaezed at the wonderful level of double standards you lot provide these days.

You demand that EFC consider other options and that they need to scour the city for alternatives, then when you find out that they have considered 35 sites prior to this one you complain at them for looking at so many when they weren?t really available.

All this shows is that Everton have considered other options and there aren?t any realistically available and affordable.

What else would you like them to do - give detailed architectural analysis of every square foot of Liverpool to see if somebody can squeeze a drawing of Goodison Park onto a photo of their back garden?
Ciaran Duff
6   Posted 11/06/2008 at 10:10:46

Report abuse

FFS lads. It never ceases to amaze me how cynical some people can be. There seems to be a belief held by some people that BK/KW & the board are taking Everton to Kirkby for some evil intent. Why wouldn’t they have looked at other options? Why wouldn’t they choose the best option for the club? IMHO, Kirkby is the best (only) option we have except staying where we are. All other options will cost a lot more money and are fraught with planning & other difficulties. As it is, financially, the deal is on a knife edge (ie we’ll be going into a fair amount of debt). Any other option would mean far more dept.
Ajamu Mutumwa
7   Posted 11/06/2008 at 11:32:23

Report abuse

Don?t be silly Gary Sedgwick.

They examined 35 sites in all. They didn?t just go down a list and say, hey folks lets pick no 35. To them Kirkby was the most viable option given a set of criteria which they set.

Lyndon Lloyd has already given a very good revision of the sites on a previous article on this site. It is also a well known fact that Everton (or more likely its advisors) reviewed a number of sites. It's the list I would expect from Everton. Why then the mystic revelation now?

Jay Campbell, one day you might want to substantiate your money grabbing claim.

I await until my retirement for your factually based answer.
Brendan Neill
8   Posted 11/06/2008 at 10:54:04

Report abuse

Andy, You talk about contempt with which the supporters have been treated, yet Everton are the only club who have gone down the ground move option AND consulted the support base.
No other club has done that. Yes, you can argue about how the question was phrased, but the club is entitled to show that it supports the move.
Anyone who was dead set against could still vote against or abstain.
The problem is that those who voted NO will find any reason possible to protest about the outcome.
Andrew Preece
9   Posted 11/06/2008 at 11:47:26

Report abuse

Argh! Another ridiculous post. The article said this was the "35th Option". Not 35th on our list of choices. Jeez. When I bought my house I must have seen 30+ different places before finding and deciding on that particular one. Didn’t mean it was my 30th best option. It meant it took looking at 30+ places before I found the BEST option. Words fail me.
Jay Harris
10   Posted 11/06/2008 at 11:50:52

Report abuse

In defence of Jay Campbell’s description it is widely known that KW is on a huge bonus for relocating us to Kirkby and allegedly his company is forming part of the gang of three that will "manage" the stadium.

KW (and his consortium) are refusing to dilute their shareholding to attract investment for the club.

Now I would call that moneygrabbing wouldnt you especially if you saw DK as many of us do as the "Crime of the century"
Tom Hughes
11   Posted 11/06/2008 at 11:54:30

Report abuse

Everton never seriously considered ANY other sites. This is yet another token gesture "after the fact". The "analysis" for each site do not stretch beyond a sentence or two for each and were borrowed from LFC’s outline report. Even then the comments are often contradictory with a few headline sites thrown in for dramatic effect only. Does anyone really believe that Calderstones in one of the Liverpool’s most affluent leafy subburbs was ever a potential site? The other proof that EFC never even considered redevelopment of GP (one of the options) is the basic fact that the feasibility study (incidentally carried out by Tesco’s own people) is dated several months after the vote and over a year after exclusivity. This is lip service at best..... more deceit at worst. Don’t believe me? Ask the club for the feasibility studies for these "options"....Ask the city planning office for any planning applications or site-surveys requested by the club (these are all available and archived). I have! They don’t exist! Just like the stadium for "practically nothing" in the "most accessible site" in UK footy!
Gavin Ramejkis
12   Posted 11/06/2008 at 12:23:57

Report abuse

If Tesco are bending over backwards to help Everton why didn’t they do it as part of their build in Project Jennifer? The stadium was the key element of the Kirkby project for them. The gullibility is shocking. For those that don’t think corruption happens did you not watch the documentary on the missing Iraqi billions last night? Keith Wyness has tried this "trick" before with Aberdeen and this time has found a cash cow in Everton FC to milk dry, CEO salary, his own stadium development company which was unfrozen to coincide with his partnership with Tesco and KBC and so many still don’t see a conflict of interest?
Damian Wilde
13   Posted 11/06/2008 at 12:29:18

Report abuse

The two Jay’s, you are so bitter it is unbelievable. You need to chill out a bit.
Joe McMahon
14   Posted 11/06/2008 at 12:31:58

Report abuse

Guys, whatever we think of Messers Kenwright & Wyness (I certainly don?t like either), they have not gone out of their way to do the worst thing possible regarding a new home. We have to move on, I?m sure the new stadium in Kirkby will be just what we need to improve the image of "unfashionable Everton". Besides moving away from Liverpool itself, look at the bigger picture - what has the City of Liverpool given Everton?...all we ever get is Liverpool FC rammed down our throats, be it with blatent favouritism and tosser celebs on TV.

On another subject I too remember making an Everton scrap book for school, my first match was seeing Greame Sharp hit a screamer against Spurs in 82. Big Nev thwarted Garth Crooks all afternoon.
Chris Briddon
15   Posted 11/06/2008 at 13:29:10

Report abuse

I am personally pleased that they have considered other options before selecting the best one. Most people on here seem to be under the impression that we jumped on the first option that came our way.
Mark Hill
16   Posted 11/06/2008 at 13:37:14

Report abuse

Keith Wyness has some pedigree it has to be said historically. Though I do not understand why on wikipedia it states he is responsible for installing a very good young management team here at Goodison?

Just a thought!

Kev Maverind
17   Posted 11/06/2008 at 13:35:29

Report abuse

The other worrying part of the article that nobody's mentioned is the comparrison of Kirkby to Hull and Bristol, two very insignificant footballing towns! I don't care what effect Everton will have on Kirkby the fact is its the wrong move, millions of pounds has been invested into the city centre and no offence, Kirkby is a dump! Why are we so keen to help Kirkby when the ward of Everton has been crying out for regeneration for decades!
Ciaran Duff
18   Posted 11/06/2008 at 12:51:42

Report abuse

You seem to think that EFC should have done a comprehensive feasibility study and put in planning applications for all options? As with any large project, the options will go through a "filtering" process. Options will be sanity checked against a list of criteria before proceeding to next stage. Remaining options would be explored further in meetings and phone calls (eg with LCC etc). I’d imagine that most options would be ruled out due to our very limited funds. Why would we put in planning applications for redeveloping Goodison if it is plain that it would cost £100M+ and we don’t have that money?
There is also the other aspect to this - what i’d call "people you can do business with". A lot of business is done this way (ie working with other businesses and organisations who you believe are trustworthy and professional etc). It is pretty clear that EFC have lost faith in LCC and with good reason it would seem. Apart from trying to block Kirkby for their own selfish reasons, they are now trying to block the sale of Bellefield even against their own planners reports:-
Who the fuck would want to do business with them?
EJ Ruane
19   Posted 11/06/2008 at 14:16:27

Report abuse

So Ciaran, let me get this straight.

You believe Knowsley’s reason’s for pushing for this move are NOT selfish!?

Fact: Knowsley council voted the way they did for THEIR selfish reasons.

No more or less selfish than than LCC.

I mention it, because you CHOSE not to.

(you might think you strengthen your argument by being selective in this way. The reverse is true)
Tom Hughes
20   Posted 11/06/2008 at 14:54:44

Report abuse

I would expect pretty extensive analysis of a few options for a project of this importance, not a throw away one liner taken from someone elses report. I would at least expect the feasibility for redevelopment to be carried out by an independent body and more importantly to have taken place before we announced to the world that we had exhausted all options. This in itself indicates the true nature of the process to date. One solution was sold to the club and every effort has since been made to make our situation fit that solution rather than vice versa. The LCC argument is a complete smoke screen. They did everything to make Kings Dock work, they are receptive to expansion at the current site, and even offered a complete study of the Loop site option..... what more could the club want. If necessary I can also give you the name of the planning officer who deals with all planning matters regarding both clubs, and you can ask him what dealings he’s had with the club in the past few years. They seriously have nothing to hide!
Ajamu Mutumwa
21   Posted 11/06/2008 at 14:58:04

Report abuse

Jay Harris,

I’ll let you into an open secret. Its not ilegal to pay someone a bonus for achieving a particular business objective.

If KW is on a bonus if we move to Kirkby is this a new, novel or an illegal busines practise? If he is, (and with that kind of money at stake its not a bad idea), he’s doing nothing illegal.

The morals of it maybe suspect though.

So stop trying to make normal business practise sound like some illegal activity.

I assume that you mean BK, not KW in your allegation about is company not diluting ownership. If so, he owns Everton already, he doesn’t have to dilute anything if he doesn’t want to . I’m sure you’ve got proof of this somewhere that this is the case.

Its the kind of falsehoods and negative assumptions that continue to damage the no campaign and give it a bad name.
Dave Moore
22   Posted 11/06/2008 at 15:21:08

Report abuse


?Kirby is a dump? First off it?s the most used word on this website so I fail to see how you missed the silent K after the R.

Drive me anywhere in Merseyside and I?ll show you that areas own little dump.

Liverpool City Council invested millions in the City centre as you quite rightly tell us, also they handed over public property to the red side but never lifted a finger to help us.

Why are we so keen to help Kirkby? Sorry but you ain?t, Kirkby town centre will be regenerated one way or the other with or without EFC & Tesco, maybe not to the same extent, but it will be regenerated.

Everton needs Kirkby more than Kirkby needs Everton don?t forget that. Of course it will benefit more with Everton but so will anywhere else. Surrounding councils are putting objections in left right and centre, why? To protect their own interests, not because they give a shit about Everton.

I can appreciate people offering up reasonable debate like poor transport, sub standard ground, not enough money etc. etc. but to turn around and say why be so keen to help Kirkby is absolute bullshit.

As for Kirkby being an insignificant footballing town, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? It?s produced as many footballers as anywhere else on Merseyside!!
Brian Waring
23   Posted 11/06/2008 at 15:41:13

Report abuse

Well, suprise, suprise! The 2 bullshitters (BK & KW ) do make me laugh. All of a sudden, it comes out that they had looked at 35 options, before going with Kirkby. It smacks of BK " look Keith, we are getting slated for not considering other options " KW " I know Bill, I’ll just put out this statement, it will keep the natives quiet" Also, I though they couldn’t look at other options, because of the agreement put in by Tesco?
Ajamu Mutumwa
24   Posted 11/06/2008 at 16:02:28

Report abuse

Brian Waring.

In case another falsehood rears its ugly head, I have to respond.

Read Tom Hughes response. The study was actually first done by our neighbours well before the exclusivity period, and when they were looking for their own new ground.

I suspect that Tom is right,and that all Everton have done is tarted the report up.

This information is not a mystic revelation, or a golden bullet. It has been known about for ages, and Lyndon Lloyd wrote a great resume on the sites on this website some months ago.

I realise that the no camp are now experts in re-writing history, and embelishing half truths - but there are people out here who do know their history and are not really prepared to let falsehoods further cloud an already clouded and acromonious debate.
Jay Harris
25   Posted 11/06/2008 at 16:18:02

Report abuse


I suggest you read my post again as nowhere did I suggest it was illegal or even immoral.

What I actually said was that it supported the concept of money grabbing that you said Jay Campbell had no right to claim.

Anyway it’s getting a bit tiresome trying to point out the deficiencies of the 2 clowns to people that are so fixed in their views they dont want to hear it so please dont feel obliged to reply.
Gavin Ramejkis
26   Posted 11/06/2008 at 16:21:56

Report abuse

Ajamu in case you had not read the actual Tesco report or parts of it posted on TW it clearly states that the directors and major shareholders of Everton FC are unwilling to sell or dilute their shareholding in order to help fund Desitination Kirkby, now to me that is pretty clear and a hypocritical denial of one of BK’s favourite bullshitisms; "24/7 search for investment".
Paul Lally
27   Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:03:19

Report abuse

Posting across all TW stadium threads.

Goodison gone - club shop moved -


Yes voters, you have had your ballot, which you keep quoting was fair and a mandate.

( I was entitled to 2 votes in my household and did not receive ballot papers).

Plus you have the EFC marketing machine on your side.So no problem then.

To EVERYONE who believes Kirkby is a very, very bad decision then please find email info.

Send to as many people as you can so that our voice is heard.

Below is the list of e-mails.
I have sent the template from KEIOC ( I simply opened up the template then copied and pasted into an email

I could not find Andy Burnham?s email but his assistant is -

Tony Williams
28   Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:12:57

Report abuse

Paul, just curious did you read the letter fully before sending it off? If so what was the breakdown of it?

I skimmed it last night but haven’t fully read it yet.

Barry Scott
29   Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:24:27

Report abuse

These are the 35 sites considered according to the planning application:

1. Existing Anfield Stadium Site
Physically too small and unavailable for ownership and current usage reasons.

2. Atlantic and Netherton Industrial Estate
A strategic employment site in Sefton, with recent planning permission for development and landowners actively pursuing to develop.

3. Central Docks
A stadium would be a suitable development. However, previous planning permission and policy designations indicate greater value for other uses. New owners have recently announced a vision for the site incompatible with a stadium.

4. Former Dunlop Site
Ownership precludes availability and its development for a stadium would impact on strategic investment programmes.

5. Dunnings Bridge Road
Inadequate size.

6. Everton Park
Major urban park protected by planning policies. Development would be difficult due to geographical constraints and surrounding residential uses.

7. Former Garden Festival Site
Availability constrained as subject to a current call-in inquiry. Ground conditions constraints and unsuitability because of waters edge location.

8. Garston Dock
Unsuitable and unavailable because of operational dock and new developments.

9. Gillmoss 1A
An important employment land allocation. Heavily dependent on access by private car.

10. Gillmoss 1B
No remaining developable area for a stadium and surrounding uses would constrain suitability for a stadium.

11. John Moores / MTL
Owned by NWDA and actively pursued as a retail, employment and residential area and an extension to Wavertree Technology Park.

12. Kings Dock
No longer available as now comprises an events arena and associated development.

13. Prescot Road
Potentially suitable in terms of planning policy. However, it is subject top several constraints ? ground contamination, multiple ownership and highway capacity.

14. Land at Speke Boulevard
Potentially suitable for a stadium and good public transport links. However, constraints relating to highway access and land purchase costs.

15. Speke Northern Airfield
Residual site capable of accommodating a stadium. Lacks adequate profile for a stadium. No prospect of enabling development. Also, policy constraints as an important strategic employment site.

16. Stanley Dock
Too small.

17. Stanley Park
Planning permission for Liverpool FC stadium and thus suitable. But, ground sharing ruled out.

18. Walton Hall Park
An urban park subject to planning policy presumption against development. Impact on park and soccer facilities could not be adequately mitigated.

19. Wavertree Playground
Considered unsuitable because of potential impact on Conservation Area, access is uncertain and unavailable without compensatory provision for park facilities.

20. Bestway Site
Unsuitable in terms of size and accessibility.

21. Edge Lane Retail Park
In use and current value militates against a viable development. Highway capacity constraints.

22. Aintree Retail Park ./ Long Lane Industrial Estate
Key constraint is multiple tenures making the site unavailable.

23. Stonebridge Cross
Unavailable because of development proposals.

24. Stanley Market
Considered suitable in principle, but close to minimum site are required and
proximity to housing would affect the net developable area.

25. Calderstones Park
Nature conservation interest and historic parkland setting make site unsuitable.

26. Sefton Park
Unsuitable as impact on Conservation Area and listed historic park could not be mitigated.

27. Newsham Park
Conservation Area, nature conservation interests and proximity to homes makes the site unviable for a stadium.

28. Sparrow Hall Playing Fields
Accessed through residential area and part of designated countryside and green space areas.

29. North Shore
Mix of land ownership, existing uses and building (including listed buildings) militates against forming a coherent site for a suitable stadium.

30. Land at Speke Boulevard
Considered unsuitable by reason of peripheral location, poor accessibility by noncar modes and proximity to Jaguar plant.

31. Huyton Business Park
Considered suitable but not available as identified as a strategic gateway site and currently occupied by industrial and business uses. Thus, not viable.

32. Kirkby Stadium
Good accessibility, but site area limited and constrained by houses adjoining.

33. Knowsley Industrial Estate
Constrained by mix of ownerships and tenures and viability issues.

34. Aintree Race Course
Within Green Belt area and operational requirements of the racecourse would conflict with those of a stadium.

35. Land South of Kirkby Town centre
Identified as available, suitable and viable, although site is designated urban open space. Capable of redevelopment as part of wider area regeneration. Has good accessibility by a variety of modes of transport.
Colin Wordsworth
30   Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:37:26

Report abuse


On one of our many chats last night I informed you that the club had loked at many sites. Now this has been and others don?t believe me or the club!

Why?...because you don?t want to!

Why?..because you and others prefer the moral high ground stating the club sold us down the river!

I don?t mind an adult conversation, but this is getting ridiculous........the club looked and found the best place for a new ground, LCC didn?t or couldn?t help us.

So I must be a liar and the devil incarnate then!

Ajamu Mutumwa
31   Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:25:56

Report abuse

Jay Harris

If its not illegal, nor immoral to pay an employee a bonus for fulfilling the businesses objectives, where is the "deficiencies" you claim.

Whether you call a legal payment "money grabbing" is down to your own personal views.

Gavin Ramejski

Good point. Acknoweldged. I would say that the statement is one of BK?s more stupid statement. First of all, you can?t be looking for something 24/7, its simply not possible.

Second, its my belief, but I think BK is trying to do what our neighbours have done. Sell out the holding to a company who ensures that he stays in some capacity.

I?ve always believed that he is the main stumbling block to investment, but given what has happened to the clowns across the park, i?d be really careful for what you wish for.

Finally, there are many things wrong with BK / KW, but there are things to applaud, which is why you won?t find me joining any lynching mob, painting them as nothing more than evil bastards.

I?ve said for sometime that the debate has become tiresome, but if people continue to post artices, there will be debate.
Dave Wilson
32   Posted 11/06/2008 at 19:25:52

Report abuse

have you got any idea how fucking ridiculous you sound, no one called you a liar,You’ve got all excited because somebody could make the list you couldnt
it was freely available, but so tranparent even Bully was too embarressed to add it to his script

Look at the nonsenical, half baked, half witted reasons listed

You would need to be gullible to the extreme to swallow such a crock of shit

Anfield ; current usage reasons ??? WTF ?

Central docks : never available ! ! ! why the fuck list it ???
Dunlop building : like Anfield current ownership never available

Dunnings Bridge Rd : inadaquate size - but then so is my fucking garden, they may as well put that on the list and called it 36 ???

Everton Park Major urban project - Tescos up tio their neck in it, unfortunately, dont fucking need us here

kings Dock : no longer available - CANT THINK WHY ! ! !

Stanley Park : planning permission given to LFC - Why ? because although we were looking first, they got in before us RIGHT UNDER OUR FUCKING NOSES

Speke, Gilmoss : FFS
there are 24- count them - 24 listed that were never available, a simple phone call would have established that
5 listed that were too small, 3 were already owned

I could have told you all of that without getting of my arse which is exactly what Bully has done

Exhasting all other alternatives ? my arse
Tom Hughes
33   Posted 11/06/2008 at 19:03:08

Report abuse

This list apart from a couple of additions is the word perfect copy of LFC’s outline report that was published years ago with NO major input from Everton. None of the comments are backed by any analysis since that wasn’t published by LFC. Therefore, these are comments without back-up as far as EFC is concerned, and predominently relating to LFC’s requirements from several years ago.

Even then some are nonsensical and contradictory, for instance:

"6. Everton Park
Major urban park protected by planning policies. Development would be difficult due to geographical constraints and surrounding residential uses."

Everton Park is a stop gap solution to population decline and failed slum clearance policies in Everton. It is not a covenanted nor listed Park but an accident of poor post-war urban planning and social engineering, and will probably be built on should a suitable development or population increase arise. The Topography of the site can be as much a benefit as a problem..... several stadia are built into hillsides for this reason! Also the local population levels are the lowest for well over 150 years, so less nuisance factor than even Kirkby’s green fields. It is also on top of all major public transport hubs and the city-centre.

"7. Former Garden Festival Site
Availability constrained as subject to a current call-in inquiry. Ground conditions constraints and unsuitability because of waters edge location."

Millenium stadium, the proposed Kings Dock stadium and current arena, City ground and many more are all waterfront stadia.... there are other infrastructure problems more onerous at this site but not mentioned.

8. Garston Dock
Unsuitable and unavailable because of operational dock and new developments.

So why even list it? You might as well include the Pier Head, then say oh no the 3 graces beat us to it a century ago!

"9. Gillmoss 1A
An important employment land allocation. Heavily dependent on access by private car."

Important you fully take that in: Heavily dependent on access by private car? So what is Kirkby with even less bus routes to it? Funnily the Gilmoss sites may form part of the proposed park and ride/walk/cycle plan. So they are out of the question because they are too dependent on cars, yet they are ok for car parking? Does that make any sense?

"11. John Moores / MTL
Owned by NWDA and actively pursued as a retail, employment and residential area and an extension to Wavertree Technology Park."

The owner did show some interest in the Stadium option, but has never been approached by the club, only LCC!

"12. Kings Dock
No longer available as now comprises an events arena and associated development."

Wonder why...................?!

"13. Prescot Road
Potentially suitable in terms of planning policy. However, it is subject top several constraints ? ground contamination, multiple ownership and highway capacity."

Don’t these problems all apply to Kirkby?

"14. Land at Speke Boulevard
Potentially suitable for a stadium and good public transport links. However, constraints relating to highway access and land purchase costs."

Has 4 dual carriageways feeding the area’s periphery with only 2 of these passing directly past the site and a mainline and northern line rail link. The congestion just for the retail park, given that this was already a busy arterial route means that there is regular gridlock. Very similar to Kirkby except with marginally greater road and public transport capacity..... oh, and it’s in Liverpool. (But still unsuitable IMO, and I could walk it)

"15. Speke Northern Airfield
Residual site capable of accommodating a stadium. Lacks adequate profile for a stadium. No prospect of enabling development. Also, policy constraints as an important strategic employment site."

Lacks adequate profile? It has Europe’s fastest growing airport next door with millions of tourists flying into it. What’s Kirkby got? Has anyone outside of Liverpool ever even heard of it?

"16. Stanley Dock
Too small."

So’s my back garden, why mention it except t as a stocking filler!?

"17. Stanley Park
Planning permission for Liverpool FC stadium and thus suitable. But, ground sharing ruled out."

Is there not room for 2 stadia? Again, why mention it if you have no intention of asking about it?

"18. Walton Hall Park
An urban park subject to planning policy presumption against development. Impact on park and soccer facilities could not be adequately mitigated."

Presumption? Was that before or after Sainsbury’s approached the club?

"19. Wavertree Playground
Considered unsuitable because of potential impact on Conservation Area, access is uncertain and unavailable without compensatory provision for park facilities."


"20. Bestway Site
Unsuitable in terms of size and accessibility."

Big enough to accommodate the Millenium stadium with full accessibility on western side with 2 roads already in place, and only the covering of an existing cutting to improve this further. The Emirates is only openly accessible from one full side with just a road bridge leading to/from the other 3. Likewise the Millenium is up against a river..... infact it overhangs the river, with tight city blocks and even another stadium on all other sides. Stamford Bridge similarly hemmed in by 2 rail lines and is on a smaller site. All this, and HOK the world renowned stadium designers stated the opposite in their report!

"25. Calderstones Park
Nature conservation interest and historic parkland setting make site unsuitable."

Does ANYONE seriously think this site in Liverpool’s most affluent subburb would ever realistically be considered?

"30. Land at Speke Boulevard
Considered unsuitable by reason of peripheral location, poor accessibility by noncar modes and proximity to Jaguar plant."

Peripheral location? non-car modes? They’re joking aren’t they? What is Kirkby?

I’ve only commented on a few, but that is all that is needed to be honest. This is a really old document that wasn’t even used to this extent by LFC. Everton have added a few funnies....... but all it represents is someone’s best interpretation of an Ordinance Survey map with a little comment for any green or brownfield site they can identify from it. To put it forward as proof of looking at the options is laughable. I have worked on some major construction jobs and even the Merseytram proposals where the reports and analysis of options at each phase of the design process would fill a technical library. This is more like an o-level geography assignment, and not a well done one at that! Then of course there’s the glaring ommision of the redevelopment option, which as you know wasn’t even looked at till Tesco’s own consultants did a quick post vote effort to appease those asking for proof.
Colin Wordsworth
34   Posted 11/06/2008 at 20:44:38

Report abuse


Sick of arguing going round and round and round!

If you don’t believe me, so be it, i’m telling the’ll believe what you want anyway!

.....I think at the moment if KW had a shit you’d say he hadn’t shitted straight!

so believe your own propoganda!


truly pathetic!
Tom Hughes
35   Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:00:32

Report abuse

Truly pathetic? My own propoganda?

Where have I called you a liar? Pick any of the points I made and tell me what bit you disagree with..... I at least had the courtesy to itemise a few and take issue with them one by one, I could’ve probably done the lot but why bother? You have gone off, without any response to the actual issues I make. This is a direct copy of a list of sites LFC looked at with a few added, and one or two comments doctored accordingly. I’m sure the original is still knocking about, it made a brief appearance on TW a little while ago. LFC never made the authoritive claims about this list that you are now associating with Everton. Furthermore the total absence of redevelopment as an option, yet inclusion of Anfield is dumbfounding surely?! The date on the eventual feasibility study, and now the sudden appearance of LFC’s list now being accredited to EFC is even more revealing. This is a very late attempt to assemble the parts of the process that should have been at our disposal before the vote.
Gerard Madden
36   Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:27:51

Report abuse

There’s far too much freneticism in this thread - full o’ heresay ’n conjecture. People should take a chill pill, calm down and relax - I fear we’re gonna witness an ’internet seizure’ before too long LOL. Anyway onto the issue - well the club considered dozens o’ sites just like the RS - and both clubs came to the same conclusion - there is only one site in the city thats big enough and available and that was Stanley Park. Good ol’ RS-LCC wont consider Walton Hall Park as an option so...well..that is that. Thats why we have to go half o’ mile across an invisible line to a scouse heartland like Kirkby for our 50,000 (Extendable to 60,000) new ground.
Stewart Marsland
37   Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:28:01

Report abuse

Today's decision to deny planing permission on Bellefield ? land owned by Everton ?shows that LCC do not give a toss about us, yet red shite get permission without hesitation to build a stadium on Stanley Park. You had better get rea ,the sooner we get out of their control the better, when are you gonna realise THEY DO NOT WANT US so stuff em I say.

And as for those who say "We were the first club in the city why should we move?" ? I say when Michel Platini or any other supporter throughout Europe is reading their European records and see Liverpool 5 European Cup wins, us 0 European Cup wins but hey we were the first club in the city.... woopee doo ? that's ok then. It means fuck all to anyone else.

Tom Hughes
38   Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:38:35

Report abuse

Keep up mate,
50,500 is the maximum capacity allowed according to knowsley’s planning office report. 60,000 cannot be accommodated according to the transport consultants..... they’re still struggling with 50k, and as for 75,000 which was supposed to be the stumbling block for the Loop........?
Tom Coleman
39   Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:35:54

Report abuse

Mr Madden

Just had an idea, I and thousands of others will not set foot in the Tesco Dome 50,401 (extendable to 50,401) according to KMBC. You are hell bent on starting a football team in Kirkby, using my team as some sort of franchise to enable you to do this.

Well lets meet half way, the all new 36th option. How about Bellefield? Plenty of land, no transport links, no access, no parking, right up you street me thinks.
Tom Hughes
40   Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:44:04

Report abuse

Might as well go to Warrington then? Let’s sever ties with scousedom completely, and anyway there’s tens of thousands of exiled blues in cheshire, several motorways coming from all angles and no resident footy team in a growing town that is much bigger than Kirkby and only 20 mins down the M62.

As with your little inaccurate diatribe, I can see nothing in this little passage that is a valid reason to move Everton further away from the centre of its fanbase even though it is perfectly factual! LCC didn’t gift LFC the park, they simply asked for it, and got it. We haven’t asked LCC about ANY site, quite the opposite in fact we cocked up the best offer from LCC (yes that’s "offer", we didn’t think it up), rebuked any proposals offers to expand footprint since!
Gerard Madden
41   Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:49:25

Report abuse

So what Tom? Old Trafford currently cant accomodate 96,000 but when they improve the infrastructure yet again and apply for planning permission at some future year i’m sure the ’Trafford Metropolitian Borough Council’ will look at the merits of the plan and approve it. I’m sure KMBC will look approvingly at a future planning application for an extension (10 or 20 years away?) of upto 60,000 and i’m sure the appropiate infrastructure improvements will be made. Kirkby is also big enough to hold 75,000 unlike one o’ two smaller plots o’ land you mention. ;)
Tom Coleman
42   Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:07:22

Report abuse

Mr Madden

Kirkby is also big enough to hold 75,000. Yes if you move a road, knock down a college, and evict our new retail partners.
Gerard Madden
43   Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:16:01

Report abuse

Tom Coleman - you clearly havent seen a plan of the new stadium site - yes there is some retail nearby coming away from o’ couple o’ corners and there is a college at one end but it is nowhere near as landlocked the top o’ my head - Goodison which has streets of housing literally feet away from three sides - just think of all those ’Dot the Reds’ and ’Dot the Blues’ and the thought of CPO’s LOL, tight narrow streets landlocked etc Then of course there’s the tiny loop (no-one ever mentions that any more) which would have dangerous busy dual carriageways hugging the walls of a small stadium that might squeeze in there - also landlocked etc. Then of course there’s the 250m-300m we would have to find. It’s like i’m dealing with children here LOL. ;)
Tom Coleman
44   Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:34:42

Report abuse

Mr Madden

Have you ever spoken to anybody that either works in the building/planning sectors, or anybody that works for LCC. If you had you may have found out that both the rebuilding of Goodison and the Loop are both very deliverable. Have you any idea the councils plans for the area around Goodison or the huge amount of remodelling to be done under project Jennifer. But why listen to these people, ( who are HOK for gods sake? when you?ve got a Barr design and build).
Gerard Madden
45   Posted 12/06/2008 at 00:02:52

Report abuse

Nonesense Mr.Coleman, why do you bring up ’Project Jennifer’ - it is signed, sealed and rarin’ to go has nowt to do with any stadium project - in fact if someone mentioned anything about a stadium hi-jacking onto it i’m sure you would find many ’Dot the Reds’ n ’Dot the blues’ up that way too LOL. As for HOK - you should know better than to bring that ol’ decaying issue before ol’ Gedney by now - that ol’ mythical ’report’ that ’really really honestly exists guv’. ;)
Tom Hughes
46   Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:51:23

Report abuse

You really need to read the clubs own transport consultants reports. Only a small fraction of the capacity can enter Kirkby in the time windows. To make just 50,500 work the vast majority of Merseyside based blues will have to park on the Liverpool side of the M57 since there are only 5 lanes going through it, with the east lancs (3 of the 5) already at saturation. THEY stated in the first consultation that they have had to limit the capacity and parking not so much due to space but because traffic flows through these limited access points cannot be met. Hence, the invention of the biggest park and ride scheme at any footy ground in the UK. By definition making this the least accessible stadium in the UK not the most, as promised, since then of course park and ride has collapsed and is park and walk! The bottom line therefore is, that unlike old trafford which has multiple access points substantial public transport and is close to central Manchester with people arriving from all directions..... Kirkby can never change its peripheral location or limited links to the main fanbase Therefore the criteria for expansion cannot be met. The question was asked directly, and the answer was the new stadium can never accommodate more than 50,500. In Black and white!
Karl Masters
47   Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:54:10

Report abuse

Re-hashing LFC’s list.

It proves 2 things - that KW is treating us with utter contempt and that the Board of Everton are truly a joke.

They only employed Moyes after asking Walter Smith who should get his job! BK actually told us that. Have you ever heard of anybody being sacked in any walk of life and being asked, ’ Oh and before you go, who do you reckon we should give your job too?’

We can all only be thankful for Walter’s suggestion. I bet he drove off in his silver Merc shaking his head in disbelief.

How can anybody trust these people?
Tom Hughes
48   Posted 12/06/2008 at 00:11:48

Report abuse

Your writing style and winks appear all over the internet under different names. You were found out on here using several names trying to simulate a broad support for your opinion. How laughable is that? How can you expect to be taken seriously? You’re a fraud!

Again, you doubt HOK’s report despite parts of it being published in the Echo and shown on KEIOC site. Even EFC have a copy! haha
Gerard Madden
49   Posted 12/06/2008 at 01:15:58

Report abuse

We’ve been over that before Tom about the different names used on here. It was Lyndon I think acting like a big girls blouse who was getting upset over my harmless non-personal attacking opines and who deleted (or put in a queue and never put on the site) any posts from me which forced me to use an alias - the view of ol’ Gedney simply has to be seen. ;) Thankfully he’s seen the error of his ways and climbed down from his petty ways. As for the fabled HOK report - putting a ’7. Conclusions’ down on the KEIOC site with a couple o’ paragraphs doesnt mean it exists. The Echo have never printed any extracts from a HOK report but someone who works there has apparantly ’seen it’.
Gary Sedgwick
50   Posted 12/06/2008 at 02:16:37

Report abuse

Please calm down all. My original post as hinted at by Dave Underwood was titled 35th Choice. I thank the moderaters for changing the title.

As a reader abroad I read the article as I saw it. Options/choices whatever. I may have been hasty in choosing the word "choice" in the title but how many readers would make the same assumption?

Yes, we should be enthused that the board exhausted all options before deciding on its course. But 35th option? I think not. We are NSNO are we not? 35th out of how many? How many did they scout out? 35? 100? 1000?

As an outsider looking in and having read responses 35th is not good enough, due diligence et al. I interpret what I see. I see 35. 35th option or choice it makes no difference to me. All I see is 34 better options/choices than the one chosen by the club.

As some have stated, we want to be EPL Champions but some will accept fifth in the league as it currently stands.

First or fifth? NSNO say first, others say fifth.

Your choice...
Dave Wilson
51   Posted 12/06/2008 at 05:16:42

Report abuse

The person who posts as Madden

So the view of Gerrard has to be seen ?

Fair play to you sunshine - made me laugh anyway - but may I suggest you actually get a view, one of your own ?

You’ve obviously swallowed KW’s script as you seem unable to post without parroting what your hero has already said, sometimes word for word

Do you and your mythical 6 yes voting mates (extendable to 8 when you manage to be in two places at once ) sit and chant KW’s script like a group of children learning their maths tables ?

Try thinking for yourself sunshine, if you want YOUR opinion heard, get one, stop parroting other peoples
Tom Hughes
52   Posted 12/06/2008 at 10:05:01

Report abuse

Why do you then post on other sites under other names, you were caught out trying to artificially create a body of support because no-one was backing you up? Either that, or you have a genuine multiple-personality problem.

Why doesn’t the club deny the existance of the HOK report? Could it be something to do with the fact that they’ve read it, and that several shareholders produced copies at the last AGM and offered them to the consultant who they wheeled in to rubbish the loop, only for him to reveal he hadn’t actually read it. Was that you? haha. You couldn’t make it up, it’s beyond farcical!

So, after that what have you got to support your stance apart from your unswerving loyalty to KW and Tesco?
EJ Ruane
53   Posted 12/06/2008 at 09:53:21

Report abuse

My favourite thing about GM (the real Everton supporter who’s nothing to do with Tesco HONEST!) is his ’I’m not bothered, it’s done deal’ stance to anti-Kirkby posts.

Yet nervously, every bleeding ’no’ post that appears, there he being bothered.

NB: He should also be aware that according to paragraph 4, sub-section P34, of the European Economic Community’s web-net posting handbook, "anyone using the word ’chortle’ in a post is a huge sweaty bell and liable to a fine of up to ?200".
Tony Williams
54   Posted 12/06/2008 at 13:43:58

Report abuse

I don’t usually like personal insults but that was a cracker EJ.....Sweaty Bell....classic
Kevin Jones
55   Posted 12/06/2008 at 13:01:50

Report abuse

Just a quick note to all those opposed to the Kirkby move especially the KEIOC mob. As the proposed new stadium in Kirkby is going to cost our club aprox. £80m Maybe if the Board give you the £80m you can find and buy us a site, within the boundaries of course, employ an architect, then a construction team to build us a 50,000 seater top of the range all singing all dancing stadium by 2010. Should be good can’t wait for the first game. Maybe we can call it the "Cloud Cuckoo Bowl".
Tom Hughes
56   Posted 12/06/2008 at 14:20:16

Report abuse

You could do it easily at GP, and completely avert the real cloud cuckoo land transport mayhem that has created 3 rejected transport strategies so far. For that amount GP could be turned into the finest combination of traditional and contemporary stadium design in the world, Have a bigger capacity, greater intimacy, preserving our heritage and identity, and all on the site of the world’s first purpose built stadium. Kirkby doesn’t come close!
Tom Hughes
57   Posted 12/06/2008 at 14:28:08

Report abuse

You haven’t got a debate in you. You hung your coat on a fantasy that has long since departed. There is only you trying to maintain it, even the club don’t use those soundbites anymore.

Still think the COM stadium is unextendable? You plant a few whoppers under different names on different sites and then disappear when asked to substantiate them...... You are the entertainment!
Kevin Jones
58   Posted 12/06/2008 at 14:45:59

Report abuse

Hi Tom, thanks for the reply without reverting to the usual abuse I’ve suffered from other posts. ( You know who you are. ) I’ve seen the design for developing GP and I’ve some serious reservations. The capacity would be reduced every year for at least 4 seasons and once you lose revenue its lost for ever. The only way to keep the same money coming in would to increase the ticket price and as we don’t fill GP at today’s prices this is not an option. Surely moving into a ready built Stadium in a close season, only costing the club £80m and only 4 miles from GP is the best thing to do. I’ve looked at all the options being bandied around and, to me at least, the Kirkby plan looks like the best solution
Tom Hughes
59   Posted 12/06/2008 at 16:13:31

Report abuse

It is possible to build new stands and not reduce capacity. New capacity built behind existing stands avoids this. Old Traffords corners for instance were filled without any capacity reduction. Stamford Bridges/Whitehart Lanes Upper tiers were all added without capacity reductions. Likewise can be achieved by adding new tiers behind the Bullens and Park end. We can hav our cake and eat it. Best of new and old in a unque stadium. Kirkby requires a massive lump sum, GP can be done in installments and with far superior transport!
Chris Briddon
60   Posted 13/06/2008 at 09:44:06

Report abuse

TOm - this is about the 10th place you’ve posted your ideas on re-development of Goodison Park. Surely that’s a bit of over kill.
All this redevelopment is only on your say so, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn’t mean you are going to convince people that its a feasible option.

Logically I don’t see what you suggest as being realistic I’m afraid and certainly not especially cheap.

I am more prepared to take the word of EFC who say it can’t be done, as surely if it could be done at less cost & without reducing capacity then it would be by far the easiest option.

the fact that its never been considered as a realistic alternative makes me believe that despite you long in depth explanations its just not a practical option.
Jay Harris
61   Posted 13/06/2008 at 14:44:37

Report abuse

Chris Briddon,

the only logic for developing Kirkby instead of GP is that it will facilitate a lot more smoke and mirrors for the "creative" accountant called KW.
Tom Hughes
62   Posted 13/06/2008 at 18:53:16

Report abuse

I can tell you that EFC have never considered the options I have described. If you don’t believe me, I can give you the name of the planning officer responsible for GP (and Anfield), and you can ask him personally if they have ever requested planning permission, formally or informally regarding expansion in the ways I have shown. Shockingly you will find they haven’t regardless of your faith in them (which frankly is even more astonishing given the numerous fabrications revealed since this process started). Then you can ask the club why their redevelopment feasibilty study is dated several months post-vote, carried out by Tesco’s consultants and also doesn’t include expansion on Bullens Rd as an option discussed with local planners. Just one of several glaring omissions on that document!

I am not the only person who thinks redevelopment is possible. Trevor Skempton is a world renowned architect who offered to show the club the possibilities at the last AGM. BK promised to take up that offer in front of hundreds of shareholders. Trevor’s still waiting! Ward McHugh designers of Twickenham, the 2nd biggest stadium in the UK have also shown it is possible, and provided costings.

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.