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?
1 Posted 11/06/2008 at 06:49:27
Whether you agree or not with the move, surely you would want them to look into as many options as possible.
2 Posted 11/06/2008 at 07:08:27
It just means they have rejigged the Kirkby plans 35 times
They could do that another 35million times,but it will NEVER be right
3 Posted 11/06/2008 at 08:28:58
Back to the subject...I’d love to know who compiled that list & how many were actually "looked at".
4 Posted 11/06/2008 at 09:58:40
The contempt with which the supporters are and have been treated has driven a huge wedge between me and my club. Seriously.
5 Posted 11/06/2008 at 10:10:23
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?
6 Posted 11/06/2008 at 10:10:46
7 Posted 11/06/2008 at 11:32:23
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.
8 Posted 11/06/2008 at 10:54:04
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.
9 Posted 11/06/2008 at 11:47:26
10 Posted 11/06/2008 at 11:50:52
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"
11 Posted 11/06/2008 at 11:54:30
12 Posted 11/06/2008 at 12:23:57
13 Posted 11/06/2008 at 12:29:18
14 Posted 11/06/2008 at 12:31:58
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.
15 Posted 11/06/2008 at 13:29:10
16 Posted 11/06/2008 at 13:37:14
Just a thought!
17 Posted 11/06/2008 at 13:35:29
18 Posted 11/06/2008 at 12:51:42
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?
19 Posted 11/06/2008 at 14:16:27
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)
20 Posted 11/06/2008 at 14:54:44
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!
21 Posted 11/06/2008 at 14:58:04
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.
22 Posted 11/06/2008 at 15:21:08
?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!!
23 Posted 11/06/2008 at 15:41:13
24 Posted 11/06/2008 at 16:02:28
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.
25 Posted 11/06/2008 at 16:18:02
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.
26 Posted 11/06/2008 at 16:21:56
27 Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:03:19
Goodison gone - club shop moved -
ALL TRACES OF EVERTON REMOVED FROM CITY OF LIVERPOOL
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 - CALVIN.MULLINGS@Culture.gsi.gov.uk
?GET UP, STAND UP ! STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHT ! DON?T GIVE UP THE FIGHT !?
28 Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:12:57
I skimmed it last night but haven’t fully read it yet.
29 Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:24:27
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
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
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.
30 Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:37:26
On one of our many chats last night I informed you that the club had loked at many sites. Now this has been confirmed....you 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!
31 Posted 11/06/2008 at 17:25:56
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.
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.
32 Posted 11/06/2008 at 19:25:52
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
33 Posted 11/06/2008 at 19:03:08
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."
"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
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.
34 Posted 11/06/2008 at 20:44:38
Sick of arguing going round and round and round!
If you don’t believe me, so be it, i’m telling the truth.....you’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!
35 Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:00:32
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.
36 Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:27:51
37 Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:28:01
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.
38 Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:38:35
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........?
39 Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:35:54
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.
40 Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:44:04
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!
41 Posted 11/06/2008 at 22:49:25
42 Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:07:22
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.
43 Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:16:01
44 Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:34:42
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).
45 Posted 12/06/2008 at 00:02:52
46 Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:51:23
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!
47 Posted 11/06/2008 at 23:54:10
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?
48 Posted 12/06/2008 at 00:11:48
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
49 Posted 12/06/2008 at 01:15:58
50 Posted 12/06/2008 at 02:16:37
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.
51 Posted 12/06/2008 at 05:16:42
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
52 Posted 12/06/2008 at 10:05:01
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?
53 Posted 12/06/2008 at 09:53:21
Yet nervously, every bleeding ’no’ post that appears, there he is...er..not 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".
54 Posted 12/06/2008 at 13:43:58
55 Posted 12/06/2008 at 13:01:50
56 Posted 12/06/2008 at 14:20:16
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!
57 Posted 12/06/2008 at 14:28:08
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!
58 Posted 12/06/2008 at 14:45:59
59 Posted 12/06/2008 at 16:13:31
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!
60 Posted 13/06/2008 at 09:44:06
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.
61 Posted 13/06/2008 at 14:44:37
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.
62 Posted 13/06/2008 at 18:53:16
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.