ToffeeWeb - Season 2007-08

The Mail Bag

Survey

Just did the survey and thought a few of the questions led you towards not supporting the Kirkby project. Take the question below, it basically gives you 3 anti-kirkby options and 1 pro-kirkby option. The first three don't apply nor does the last one. The increased benefit is buying a seat knowing there's no obstructed views, better facilities and greater capacity to scare the shit out of opposition even more! ---------------------------------- Your answers to the two three previous questions were based:

On principal ? I won't support the move to Kirkby
On Financial considerations ? I can't afford to attend regularly in Kirkby
On convienience ? Kirkby is harder for me to access
On Increased benefit ? Kirkby is easier for me to access/afford

Dan Parker, New York, US Posted 22/07/2007 at 15:51:44

back Return to the Mail Bag

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

Steve
1 Posted 22/07/2007 at 16:32:40

I too thought the survey had a vote no bias when I looked. The question you mentioned allows me to pick the last answer because I live in Fazarerley (on the Kirkby line) but it is a loaded question.

There was also a question about what would happen if there was an 11th hour site in Liverpool with investment which was a yes or no and I thought I’m not sure but didn’t have that choice.

If you are going to conduct a survey please try to keep it objective.

barry
2 Posted 22/07/2007 at 16:32:26

Yeah I didn’t answer that question either as it didn’t have an option that was applicable to me. I am suppoting Kirby not because it is easier for me to access or afford but because I feel it is the right thing to do at this moment in time and besides hich I am an Evertonian and I would watch us play down a coal mineif necessary.

Lyndon
Editorial Team
3 Posted 22/07/2007 at 16:43:00

Barry, the question to which you refer is based on a potential change in your supporting habits that a move to Kirkby may have and was couched only in the context of the previous two answers in the survey, not your overall opinion of the Kirkby proposal.

We?re going to assume that most fans would watch Everton anywhere they played ? the question tries to ascertain how many people would not follow the Blues to Kirkby, on principal or because it?s too expensive/inconvenient for them.

It?s not meant to be a loaded question. The survey honestly was honestly intended to be impartial.

barry
4 Posted 22/07/2007 at 17:43:48

Hi Lyndon. I wasn’t actually saying the survey was biased just that that question didn’t have an option that was applicable to me. My answers to the two previous questions were no I would not consider not renewing my season ticket and that my match going attendance would not change. Then the flawed question asks me what I based those two answers on but the only positive answer is that Kirkby is more affordable or convenient and that is not what I based my decision to the two previous questions on.

The flaw in this question will allow the dissenters the option to express why they wont be attending or renewing but doesnt allow the pro movers to express why they will be renewing or continuing to attend unless of course it is because of the affordability or accessibility of Kirkby.

There should be other options for the pro movers for instance ’because I feel it is the right move for the club’ or ’ because I dont feel a move to Kirkby will make a difference to Everton or something similar.

I am sure you intend the survey to be impartial and I am sure it was just an oversight but if you leave that question you will have flawed results as the only reason you will have for people wanting to attend matches in Kirkby is that it is more convenient or afforsdable.

Its a small point and prob doesn’t mater in the grand scheme of things no offence intended

Mark Joseph
5 Posted 22/07/2007 at 20:36:48

Spot On Dan,
In the comments box on the survey I said exactly the same.

It may not be loaded Lyndon but it doesn’t cover all options. Did Mr Wyness help you with putting the rules together for voting >:-)

Lee
6 Posted 22/07/2007 at 21:26:53

# On principal ? I won’t support the move to Kirkby

[i]That’s your prerogative. However, principal should be based on reason.[/i]

# On Financial considerations ? I can’t afford to attend regularly in Kirkby

[i]And here’s where reason fails. Kirkby is a 10 minute car drive or a 15 minute train journey away from Goodison right now. No matter what your means of transport, the difference in cost is around £3 at most.[/i]

# On convienience ? Kirkby is harder for me to access

[i]That’s nonsense also. Train and bus facilities are adequate, and a car journey is almost as easy if you consider the parking nightmare around the current ground. The only inconvenience is 15 minutes max extra travelling time.[/i]

# On Increased benefit ? Kirkby is easier for me to access/afford.

[i]This is an option which isn’t actually selectable even if you DO support the ground move - as it’ll probably take you 15 minutes longer to get to and a tiny amount more to pay.[/i]

Therefore, pro-move people had NO option whatsoever in that vote! And i’m actually 50/50 on the whole thing. My point is, only those who object to the move are vocal and makes it look like a lot more Evertonians object to the move that is actually the case.

Roy Coyne
7 Posted 22/07/2007 at 22:48:21

Don’t understand the problem if I find something on a survey that I don’t think is right I don’t fill it in I presume you have also complained to Kenwright for not giving an option B

Art Greeth
8 Posted 23/07/2007 at 03:18:15

Agree with Dan and others about the wording of some questions and options in the survey. I wouldn’t go as far to say it deliberately nudges respondents into the anti camp, but real options are limited in some parts of the survey. I also drew attention to this in the comment box available. It needed an ’other’ option in places, with possibly a comments box to explain your ’other reason’.

Tom Hughes
9 Posted 23/07/2007 at 10:06:45

Lee, transport provision for Kirkby is adequate? I can assure you it is nothing like adequate. It is the end of the line for a 4 trains per hr train line, and a very limited bus terminus. It is as you would expect the provision for a relatively small town housing and industrial estate. Having a motorway pass you does not make you a major transport hub. Car journeys will not be easy when 40-50,000 are all trying to travel in the same direction to and from the stadium along a handfull of routes. Try accessing/leaving Kirkby on a rush hour (I did it for 6 years) That will be nothing like trying it with 50,000 Evertonians. Give it a few crappy performances followed by hours of gridlock or waiting for the pitiful number of buses/trains available...... and watch the attendances drop! Before you say there will be more buses and trains consider this: sandhills gets 50 trains per hour (soccerbus), There is something like 10 times the number of buses entering leaving the Walton Area (from all directions)compared to Kirkby. There are far more single bus routes from around the city that access Walton than Kirkby. There is also very little spare capacity in the deregualted public transport system. Adequate?