Indeed... but don't skip the detailed financial analysi Colin Fitz has put together. FOr me, it get's to the mysterious heart of the "Deal of teh Century" ? just how much will it really cost us?

Although I know exactly where you’re coming from, Paul, I ironically don’t share your sentiments because, as a committed Kirkby no-voter, I’m actually relieved that Leahy didn’t produce it before the ballot because I’m sure it would have ensured a sizeable "yes" majority. For, I have to agree, what Leahy (you can call him Sir Terence) wrote was not only lucid, but it was the most cogent distillation of the perceived benefits of Kirkby that I’ve yet read. What’s more, it was mature in tone and courteous in execution. In short, it was exactly what we as Evertonians - whether pro or anti Kirkby - deserve at such a signal moment in the club’s history. And the quality of Leahy’s presentation contrasted severely with the "6th-Form common roon debating society" effort released last week by the club’s CEO. That was why there was such a backlash against Wyness’ ill-conceived - and deeply immature - "open" letter and it was a mystery to me as to why so many "yes" voters simply could/would not concede that there wasn’t an ounce of quality in what he submitted. As much, though, as I appreciated what Leahy wrote - and the Tesco package in its broadest terms (sic) appears very appealing indeed, something I’ve never disputed - it didn’t sway me one bit because I’m unswayable. That doesn’t mean I’m stubborn. It’s simply because, to my mind (that residing in my head, not my heart), Kirkby is just the wrong location. Nothing to do with boundaries, nothing to do with Kopites, nothing to do with Kirkby’s reputation. It’s just low profile, out of the way, too easily by-passed and off-the-beaten track. Nothing Leahy can say could convince me otherwise. And the (head) test I’ve applied to myself to check whether I am being stubborn has been to ask myself the following: "Would I have favoured the Tesco deal in a more prominent location, regardless of boundaries?" The answer, probably, is a default yes. Which is why I winced when Leahy revealed how close we’d come to the Tesco package in the Scotland ward area. Although it has come very late in the day, I believe, Paul, that Leahy might just have swung things at the death for you in the "yes" camp. And the fact that he even had to resort to making such a presentation, after the forms were posted, is as clear and damning an indication as there can be that Leahy knows, as we all do, that EFC - whom he will have trusted - has made an utter hash of its own PR on this one, with the nadir being Wyness’ letter last week. And that, for me, for so long a dyed-in-the-wool Kenwright supporter, is the biggest worry of them all. Credit where it’s due, though, Leahy’s letter was indeed impressive.

Paul, apologies, I shouldn’t have said "for you, in the yes camp". I note you said you’ve been in the "no" camp.

Greg, can I ask you:

Where will we get the money to get a stadium outside kirby? Don’t forget we will probably have to pay for it ourselves.

Where will we get the land for the commercial side of the project and transport infrastructure?

How long do you want to wait for it? It could take over 5 years to identify a site and move in. Walking past liverpool’s new ground every week is ok yeah?

And the load of architectual and legal questions I could ask you too.

Michael, the Colin F article unfortunately doesn’t get to the heart of the issue at all! The crux of his argument is based on a glaringly erroneous and simplistic assumption as to the cost of the build. As you suggest it’s worth everyone giving it a read including yourself again.
The numbers point to Kirkby..not perfect but by far the best current option.

I agree totally with Greg Murphy’s analysis on Leahy’s letter. I am a committed No voter for similiar resons to greg, plus I am convinced that the long term implications for our fan base will be irreversible if we moved. That aside, Leahy’s comments hit home, and for the first time in this whole debacle, I could understand why we are exploring the Kirkby site. What it has shown however, is that Ironically the biggest champion of move to Kirkby-Keith Wyness-could have actually lost the vote for the Yes camp. The way he has conducted himself and the tone of his statements have completely alienated me and half of the fanbase at our beloved blues.
The lack of information fed to the fans early doors (some call it the "mushroom" technique) has hardened my desire to resist anything that he has to offer.
Well done to Leahy for such a compelling argument, however It does not change a single thing for me. There is a well known saying that if an offer sounds too good to be true-it ALWAYS is. Whatever happened to "only the best will do", if this offer was the best option for Everton football club-the fans would be united and as one. The board that divides the fans will ultimately damage the team.

Gavin,
You continue to ask us supporters (Greg, this time) questions that you should be putting to the people in charge if the club. It’s not the supporters job. We haven’t got the resources, time or ability to answer you. The hired hands do.

Gavin, notwithstanding Phil Bellis’ correct assertion that it’s EFC who should answer your questions: I do believe you are right to ask them. Course you are. I think most "no" voters accept this and they know the bind the club is in (which disappoints me even more that we continually get accused of heart-thinking not head thinking; and further to Leahy’s concession that the head v heart mixture is a "complex" one regarding football, I would just offer this tangential comment: if I’d been thinking with my head these last 40 years, I’d probably have donned a red & white scarf ((always upside down!)) long ago). Anyway, I digress: I readily concede that I can’t offer you anything approaching a substantial answer to any of your questions. As a "yes" voting Blue, you have got me and many other "no" people squeezed firmly by the fundamentals. And all I can offer in return is that, I feel, viscerally, that Kirkby is the wrong move. That’s all. Can’t expand on that because everything else is conjecture and subjectivity. Surely, though, the implicit concession that you, perhaps unwittingly, make when presenting your questions is to acknowledge that Kirkby seems to be our "only" option. I know many "yes" voters who agree with me that Kirkby is "just wrong" - intuitively so, no more, no less - but they’re going to go there anyway, albeit reluctantly, because "we’ve no choice". To my mind, just because it’s our "only" option, doesn’t mean it’s the "right" one. If it is a "no vote" (which I now doubt, anyway) then of course those like me recognise the inherent gamble of sitting tight and hoping (and it concerns me deeply). What you must surely also accept is that moving represents just as much a gamble? Do you? We can go around in debating circles all day and we’ll get nowhere because of the trenchant (and thought out) positions we both hold. All we can do is respect each other’s views, and yep, just keep presenting them; and see where we stand in five weeks’, five months’ and five years’ time.

Nice to see so much informed and well written debate once again on the hallowed TW pages.

I am still a ’no’ voter, despite Leahy’s letter. My point was that at least I felt that he helped put forward the ’yes’ case more lucidly than our bumbling CEO ever could.

After reading the Colin Fitz piece - which contains exactly what KW doesn’t want us to know - I’m hoping and praying that the ’no’ camp prevails.

Nil satis nisi optimum.

On a minor note would the other Gavin please put his full name in so people don’t get confused thinking you are me, I always post using my full name.

Seems to me that some on here take cynicism way too far. It seems clear that this site promotes those with an agenda against the club way too much. Colin Fitz’s article (in terms of it’s Kirkby Project picture painting) seems a pertinent example. Sir Terry Leahy’s article spells out the situation very clearly and openly and whilst he has a vested interest (as Tesco CEO first and Evertonian second) it is surely by far the most sensible analysis. Since the Club have admitted they would prefer within the City if viable Kirkby is still a clear no brainer. There is no Plan B (other than staying at GP as KW stated) because any proposed plan B does not stack up...to the tune of over 100 million! It’s wake up time! Don’t fool yourselves with delusions of grandeur, a yes vote means grandeur is coming to Kirkby in the form of a 400million regeneration with the New GP at it’s core. It is not very far at all either!

Cheers Greg for picking up on and elucidating my response to Gavin; I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m getting very little work done lately. I just can’t concentrate - this bitter dispute is getting to me like the infamous ’Rooney BH Weekend’.

I have read through Colin’s financial analysis and firstly thank him for the time and effort this must have taken.

I was a no voter until the Leahy report which came closest to answering my questions. Colin’s has gone some way to make me rethink but it is lacking too I feel in a couple areas of principle.

The forecast of our debt and P&L is too loose in my opinion. This is almost not his fault though. KW has given no real financial info at all - which was my first reason for being a no voter. There was no substance behind his numbers. After Leahy I have taken some comfort that they are NOT doing this blindly. They would be capably negligent if they had not completed a discounted cash flow for the next 10 years at least.

Colin’s attempt unfortunately does not have all the info that I believe is avalaible to the EFC board. As such it cannot be taken as gospel. My 2nd problem is one of comparison. If I read right - in his debt analysis which reads 96m he is not comparing apples to apples. He has the full debt compared to the annual income from naming rights. I am not disputing his numbers but the stadium will also not be paid in full so the fact that the naming rights may come in annually is not an issue to me. In fact it helps as it assures an income stream that can offset any debt repayment we have without going solely into other revenue streams.

So compelling read, but to me this is the type of analysis I want from KW. But why still yes? Because colin’s report falls short in one main area: If Kirkby is so tough to finance can he give us answers on how the hell we’re going to afford anywhere else? Unfortunately he can’t.

Danny - Couldn’t agree more with you. I’ll nail my flag to the mast as a No voter, but Terry Leahy’s piece did make a lot of sense and carry the credibilty that Wyness has completely lost. His approach to the vote has been to assume that Evertonians would just go along with him and that he could bully/undermine those who objected. I genuinely believe that if he had acted in a more professional manner and Leahy had got involved (publicly) earlier, the Yes vote would have romped it. I don’t know a single blue who is voting Yes, mainly because of a lack of trust, primarily of Wyness. Colin’s piece on the finances has finally convinced me that a No is the right vote for me.