Am I missing something here? Evertonians were asked to vote on the move to Kirkby having been informed by Wyness that there were no options, B or C. At the AGM yesterday, Kenwright disclosed that that Goodison and the Loop are in fact options B and C; albeit he has no idea how much it would cost to build a ground on these sites.
Surely the most ardent 'Yes' voter would now agree that this puts serious doubt on the validity of the ballot... or are you still too blind to see it?
For what it's worth, my take on Kenwright's comments at the AGM is that he is once more moving the goalposts, having finally realised that the proposed Kirkby development is not deliverable and that opposition against the scheme amongst Evertonians and Kirkby residents is growing by the day as the truth surfaces.
Steve Ryan, Posted 05/12/2007 at 03:44:06
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
Kenwright admitted those options would be Plans B and C if (when?!) the Kirkby proposal falls apart. As you say, that flies in the face of what Keith "on the train to Kirkby" Wyness said during the ballot ? that if the vote was "no", there was "no plan B". Of course, there always were other options, just not "deliverable" ones by Wyness's parameters. Trouble is, he didn't ever bother to find out how deliverable or undeliverable those alternatives were/are and presented the fans with Hobson's Choice. And the result was predictable ? after all, how many fans when taking the club's line at face value felt confident in turning down what was pitched as a chance to ultimately provide more transfer funds for the manager?
The issue now is that the cost of Kirkby started out as "practically free", went through the £25m and £50m barriers during the lifetime of the ballot and is now estimated to be around £80m. At those prices ? and assuming we have the funds to pay for it, although no one knows where they'll come from ? the redevelopment of Goodison deserves to be looked at as a viable alternative. And if, as they insist, Bestway and the LCC can provide a package to rival that on offer from Tesco on Scotland Road, then that's one more option that was not given due consideration prior to the ballot.
One of most important things the Kirkby sceptics wanted was evidence that the club had properly explored these other options; instead, they appear to be a) constantly to reacting to new initiatives by releasing ad hoc statements from experts connected to the Kirkby proposal, and b) now admitting that they will have to look at these previously "undeliverable" options if Kirkby doesn't come off.
1 Posted 05/12/2007 at 08:14:54
2 Posted 05/12/2007 at 08:34:02
However,your in-house expert gave the debt figure as £60M a few weeks ago and others have written to say it’s nearer £80M! Which is correct?
Similarly, we keep getting different figures for the cost of the Kirkby project-can’t somebody come up with a true and accurate figure for once?
3 Posted 05/12/2007 at 09:34:23
Of course, when we were told that there were not Options B or C we, as intelligent human beings, understood that to mean that, in the opinion of the club, there were no GOOD Options B or C. We are not idiots. There are ALWAYS other options. The question is which is the BEST option, given the avaliable, fundable alternatives.
On that, the situation remains the same as it ever was. Given the available alternatives, and our unfortunately modest financial position, Kirkby remains the best option. There are good arguments about Goodison, but most of us don?t believe this is a real goer for our long term future. And the Loop option is too small, too expensive and the Bestway and LCC partnera are too weak / incompetent. I do not need precise engineering calculations to know that building a large new stadium on a traffic island is risky and expensive.
The Nos continued argument is a version of: ?you must have voted Yes because you believed Kirkby would cost exactly £x, it was Kirkby or extinction for our club etc. etc. (i.e, because you were a misinformed idiot); and now that it turns out that the cost may have gone up (wow! like Wembley or the New Anfield or just about any other construction project), and that we could always stay at Goodison (shock! horror!), you were obviously misinformed and must really have wanted to vote No; and must feel very guilty and want to apologise?.
This is insulting rubbish. I am not an idiot, nor are other Yes voters. We voted Yes because we believe that we need to move, and think that, on balance, Kirkby is the best of the alternative alternatives. We have our own minds and oddly enough don?t believe everything we are told by the club, and we find it insulting to be contnually portrayed as mindless sheep. A little respect for your fellow thinking Blues would be in order. Even if they voted Yes.
4 Posted 05/12/2007 at 10:06:47
This I just read from Everton’s consultant last night. No voters keep saying "we have no idea of costs!!". But we do. Be honest, does any of you seriously doubt this second sentence above? Does any of you seriously think that the Loop would not be massively more expensive to construct than Kirkby?
5 Posted 05/12/2007 at 10:01:38
6 Posted 05/12/2007 at 10:13:44
7 Posted 05/12/2007 at 10:14:32
By the way, I care about Everton Football Club as well, just like you. That’s why I voted Yes.
8 Posted 05/12/2007 at 10:38:09
added to the already highly emotional question of leaving GP to take a leap out of the city.
The ballot question gave an indication of a cost to EFC of between £25M-£50M if I am correct.
Intelligent people voting will indeed have deduced, despite the official line being « there is no plan B or C », that any other alternative plans would cost a lot more (£200M ? £250M ?).
Hence the Hobson?s choice : can afford vs can?t afford.
If, now, plan A is finally costing more than the £50M mark and is actually approaching the £100M, this figure is rapidly decreasing the initial gap between what EFC has considered a « deliverable » project and plans B and C which EFC has considered « non-deliverable » to the point of not even carrying out a detailed cost evaluation of said alternatives.
What is galling and is apparent from Bill Kenright?s emotional interview is that despite EFC employing the services of « highly skilled and competent experts », plans B and C have STILL NOT HAD an official cost analysis study done BY THE CLUB.
Indeed Bill states that EFC are using all their energy on the plan A and that it is for « others » to continue to pursue other alternatives, not EFC. That is the point that most surprises me from his replies.
He gives the impression that alternatives have been pursued by EFC but presents nothing concrete for their rejection apart from dismissive uncosted comments.
Supporters of the club need to be reassured that all alternatives have had a cost analysis made to the same degree as has the Kirkby project. Only then can an honest balanced decision be made leaving only the emotional element.
And one final point : has EFC ever given the actual figure (cost) of any project which makes it deliverable or not for the club i.e. is it £50M, £100M, £150M ?? Consider this figure compared to a progress redevelopment plan of GP for example ?
9 Posted 05/12/2007 at 10:53:35
Reading the report from the AGM, you can characterize the club’s position in a very different way. They have had their consultant look at all sites. On the basis of that consultancy, they have decided that the Loop site does not meet the minimum standards for size and cost (and I would imagine partners) which would merit further detailed investigation. Given the quote I copy above from the consultant, and indeed the obvious facts about the Loop site, that is hardly an unreasonable position, even if it is one that you can disagree with.
Nor, critically, does it amount to dismissing the Loop without even looking at it. The club position on this is brutally clear: they have in fact looked at the Loop site, but they don’t like it. They are under no obligation to do detailed analyses of sites that they don’t think are goers.
10 Posted 05/12/2007 at 11:25:33
However the conclusions have not been given other then through - I repeat - dismissive uncosted comments like those given in the AGM initial report you quote.
Added to this the fact that Bill states in his interview that the consultant concluded that Site C is too small for a 50,000 seater goes contrary to another consultant (whose opinion I also trust) from Bestway (& HOK) stating that a 55,000 seater could be built there.
What I want to hear from EFC is : "our cost estimation for plan A is £X Million, our cost estimation for plan B is £Y Million. And here is how we got to those figures..."
Until that is done I cannot see that a balanced cost evaluation has been made and therefore cannot be certain that the right decision is being made.
11 Posted 05/12/2007 at 11:38:07
My simple claim is that you don’t need to do very detailed cost analyses when the difference in cost is obviously "huge". You don’t need a measuring tape to know that Alan Stubbs is taller than Leon Osman.
12 Posted 05/12/2007 at 11:43:45
That’s my point.
13 Posted 05/12/2007 at 11:46:13
14 Posted 05/12/2007 at 11:38:24
Which is correct?
Well given HOK are world reknowned and knowing Everton FCs recent record on doing things ?properly?. I think I know who to believe.
What really gets me is that if Kirkby will cost us £80m then surely that would go along way to building on another site too (be it GP, The Loop, or elsewhere)?
Surely if we need additional investment to fund the ground/club a stadium in Liverpool would attract more investmment??
No real feasibility has been done by the club into other sites. They have closed the doors on these options without any sound consideration. I fear the worst. We all (YES and NO voters) want the best but moving to Kirkby could really fragment the fan base and the club itself.
You cant compare moving to GP from Analfield 100 years ago to now. Different circumstances back then and we had only been there for a small amount of years anyway.
If we need to leave our home then lets hold out for the best we can get. Surely people can see that Kirkby (the location, the stadium design, the whole proposal) is not the best we can get?!
15 Posted 05/12/2007 at 11:49:19
I think they have been far too unwilling to come out and tell the blunt truth which is driving the whole decision to go to Kirkby. WE ARE NOT VERY RICH. So they use silly weasel words like "not deliverable" (which perhaps implies ’not practical’) when really all it comes down to is ’not affordable by us’.
If only they were honest they could come out and say something simple like: "Of course we looked at the Loop and other sites. But the bottom line is that they are much more expensive purchases and builds than Kirkby, and we don’t have the sharing with and buyer power of Tescos. So we can’t do them. We might be able to afford to redevelop Goodison, but we cannot bear any disruption in our revenues, and do not believe it gives us the long-term revenue streams we need".
Perhaps the club does not want to admit so blatantly that our relative poverty is driving this decision. But without admitting that, they say things which don’t really stack up and just fuel further arguments. Honesty would be a much better policy.
16 Posted 05/12/2007 at 11:44:37
Further than that they should have given a preliminary vote of which sites should be considered based on size, cost & requirements. Then & only then would it have been a true vote, not this overly quoted, Hobson's choice! Which forced fans on both sides of the argument to pick what they concieve to be the lesser of two evils, not what is BEST for the club they all so obviously love.
From the outside, with the information I have gathered myself the biggest issue lies with a Rasputin type CEO who is inept at the job & is causing this new stadium debate to be a horrid, dividing, dishonest & painful affair as opposed to an emotional, exciting time for the club which is what it should be!!
Do your research on Wyness, I believe he has somehow bluffed his way into a number of top jobs, following the same plan in each one yet leaving no organisation in a better state than when he found it. Ask an Aberdeen fan.
17 Posted 05/12/2007 at 12:05:08
As Kirkby costs escalate, this doesn’t mean that we can now afford other more expensive options. It means that we might not be able to afford Kirkby either. (WE ARE NOT VERY RICH.)
Perhaps the conclusion from all this is that, given that in the end the club cannot afford to go for any other decent option than the lowest cost one (i.e. Kirkby), it was a farce to put all this to a vote in the first place. Certainly might have saved some time on Toffeeweb!
18 Posted 05/12/2007 at 12:25:39
19 Posted 05/12/2007 at 12:36:42
However, I think it would be sensible for the club to at least make further investigations into alternative sites, whether that be the loop or somewhere else, given the growing opposition for the proposed stadium in Kirkby from the local residents and the alternative plans that have been submitted to re-develop Kirkby town centre.
You know it makes sense.
20 Posted 05/12/2007 at 12:11:53
The problem with our club is that we have a Chairman who loves the club so much he is suffocating it. He has made his money through theatre and this stadium debate is beginning to rival any of his so called box office hits, the drama! the roller coaster ride! or whatever you would loosely term this debacle is tearing the club apart.
We have a Chief Executive who has extremely questionable success wherever he has been and is showing himself to be the incompetent lap-dog begging for external help he has been in most of his other roles in or out of the business of football.
If for one "deliverable" moment the people in charge of this club listened as they said they would to the supporters on what they wanted for the so-called People?s Club then maybe, just maybe they would not have acted so irresponsibly with a handful of "facts" about the Kirkby project to lure the voters in to a quite frankly George W Bush-style ballot victory.
At least we have learned one thing from this debate: Everton FC are the People?s Club... with those people being Keith Wyness and Bill Kenwright.
21 Posted 05/12/2007 at 12:47:12
I am further disillsioned that he has put the future of Everton on the words of Chris Potts of Savilles who will clearly have his own motives for pushing the ?easiest? project forward and a subsequent payday on the back of it. It is one big fucking joke and just confirms my previous opinion that Wyness and Kenwright just want what is easiest as they don?t have the capacity, vision or competence that people in their positions should have.
The only solace I take from this is that when it goes belly up, which looks more and more likely by the day, then hopefully that will lead to the end of Wyness. Fingers crossed...
22 Posted 05/12/2007 at 13:17:30
The KEIOC monkeys have exposed themselves as liars yet again. :)
23 Posted 05/12/2007 at 13:15:46
24 Posted 05/12/2007 at 13:21:30
How comes we always piss about when other clubs just get on with it. Yet again thanks Bill Kenright, you have doen nothing for us and never will, please go back to your luveys. I want a chairman who gets results, ALL clubs above us in the league have atracted large investment.
25 Posted 05/12/2007 at 13:28:54
However I will suggest an answer : who went knocking on the door of Tesco for the Kirkby site ?
Could that same person not go knocking on the door of A.N.Other potential commercial partner(s) for an alternative site (loop or GP redevelopment) ?
The argument is of course lopsided in Kirkby’s favour so long as the partner exists there and not elsewhere.
Which is why I repeat we need some concrete figures :
1) stadium cost on site A, site B and site C ;
2) amount EFC can afford to put into the project whatever the site, which leaves us with the amount left over for a partner(s) to stump up ;
3) elaboration of a commercial deal proposal (supermarket, hotel, shopping centre...)
4) scouting of potential partners
All this is the job of EFC (unless a future partner with an eye for a deal is alert e.g. Bestway) with studies and concrete figures. It is not the job of "others" as Bill K suggests in his interview.
And before anyone says "nobody went knocking on Tesco’s door", it was them who came to EFC, I say there is another "partner" who has come to us (Bestway), let’s listen !
26 Posted 05/12/2007 at 13:44:04
It was an absolute joke for EFC Ltd to put such a massive decision to the fans and I would suggest that is why KEIOC is so fervent in their abuse.
The club should have just come out and said, "We are moving here and building will start in 20??" instead of causing the biggest rift between Everton fans I have ever known.
With regards to getting these reports to confirm that the Loop site is a) Too small and b) Too expensive.....Why should they? They have chosen to chase the Kirkby aspect and why should they spend however many thousands compiling a report to placate a faction of Anti-Kirkby fans.
The sign says the People's Club but it is his club and he doesn?t have to justify any decision if he doesn?t want to.
27 Posted 05/12/2007 at 13:46:37
The question is whether that is a bad thing. I actually think that only balance it is a very good thing. We are getting into bed with a gorilla it is true, but on the positive side: (a) they are hugely experienced in delivering such projects (I trust Leahy a lot more than I trust Wyness!); (b) they have more political and commercial clout than anyone, and so can deal with the inevitable obstacles along the way (I’m sure Gordon Brown takes Leahy’s telephone calls but not Kenwright’s); and (c) it is a stone cold certainty that Tesco can get the lowest cost construction in the UK (they build the most sites). Leahy is also a committed Evertonian, which doesn’t guarantee anything, but is certainly better than not.
We needed to find an option which we could afford, and which had a partner who was guaranteed to deliver. You can see why Kirkby with Tescos looks better than any alternative to Kenwright and Wyness. Tesco’s involvement certainly makes me happier about it. The location may not be perfect but at least the bloody thing will get built!
28 Posted 05/12/2007 at 14:20:24
I also don't agree with the constant barracking of Bill Kenwright, the biggest insult you could level at him is gullible. The CEO is the one who makes the big decisions or presents them in a way that it seems the only option. Like I said earlier, with that joke of a chief exec Wyness we will probably fuck any development up in Kirkby. Football fans are a lot more knowledgable these days & surely they know that as much as we don't want it to be, the club is ran as a business & the man running it (Keith Wyness) is not fit to run a newstand selling Echoes. He simply has to go, he is a snake who has no interests but his own at heart.
He has to go.
29 Posted 05/12/2007 at 14:33:11
And whilst we are on about lies, deceipt etc. Where is your evidence that
?Keith Wyness? is not fit to run a newstand selling Echos? He simply has to go, he is a snake who has no interests but his own at heart.
All I can see so far is that he has a different opinion to a number of posters here. That doesn?t automatically make him not good at his job.
30 Posted 05/12/2007 at 14:48:53
In some ways Wyness has been more direct and honest than Kenwright. Although a stupid way of putting it, the reality, like it or not, is that there are no ’good’ Plan Bs that we have found that we can afford (apart from staying at Goodison and hoping for the best).
It may turn out that we can’t afford Kirkby either, but that’s a different matter. But it’s stupid to have a vote when you are poor and when one option is head and shoulders above the others in terms of its costs. I strongly suspect that it was Kenwright who wanted the vote, not Wyness.
Kenwright continues to just sound like he is bumbling around but ’doing his best’. See this just on the national BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7128283.stm
Mind you, the Corky the Cat quote is a good one!
31 Posted 05/12/2007 at 14:50:08
Chris, he is not fit for EFC. He lies, he exaggerates and manipulates information. He?s like a politician only serving his own needs. Kirkby has no positive in his book other then it?s a quick way to get a big fat bonus. Then he?ll be off tagging himself as "The man who modernized Everton FC". While we deal with the consequences.
Let?s look at his best decision yet. Closing down every EFC shop in the northwest (bar the club shop). I thought we were trying to increase our presence as a Club. So we get £1m off JJB and they force us to close all our shops. While LFC have their shops all over the place (and their merchandise in JJB stores).
Excellent thinking Keith.
Build a lovely new training complex and the sell it for less than the going rate. Then lease it back and end up paying a shit load more for it at a later date. AWESOME!!!!
The Kirkby stadium is just the latest of his short term fixes. The guy is dragging us down. He states the obvious and some people drop their jaw in amazement. Comments along the lines of;
"We need a new stadium" - wow, really Keith?
"We need to increase turnover" - no shit Keith?
"We need bigger profits to compete with the best" - words of wisdom Keith.
?We need to market the club better? ? give the guy a medal.
Short term profit but long term instability. And he?ll be long gone when the shit comes back to haunt us.
32 Posted 05/12/2007 at 13:11:13
33 Posted 05/12/2007 at 12:52:59
They need to take a good look at themselves. At the recent derby match, when we needed a united front against the enemy, what did they do?.... put out leaflets attacking the club and flying a plane over the pitch whilst our team was trying to beat Liverpool and giving their fans ammunition a-plenty.
The AGM last night sounds like it was a vehicle to attack the custodians of our club, who to me are doing a decent job.
34 Posted 05/12/2007 at 13:31:18
A friend who works a lot with Tesco's management says that the exclusivity deal which we all know about has clauses in which we pull out of it could cost the club somewhere between £10 and £15 millon.
Could this be a reason why Baron greenback refuses to acknowledge there may be any other viable alternative? Just a thought, hope someone can clear this up.
35 Posted 05/12/2007 at 15:13:10
Could I just make one suggestion? Perhaps Bill and Keith are supporting the Kirkby option because they think it is the best available option for the club in terms of what we need and what is affordable?
Now, you may disagree with them. But it isn’t it just possible that this is the truth rather than that they are lying self-interested bastards intent on screwing the supporters, killing the club, and lining their own pockets?
36 Posted 05/12/2007 at 15:15:43
Why not let the board manage the business and supporters can support. It takes seven goals or the defeat of Man U to get any noise in Goodison. Save your breath for the game!
37 Posted 05/12/2007 at 16:55:15
38 Posted 05/12/2007 at 17:06:54
39 Posted 05/12/2007 at 18:26:15
40 Posted 05/12/2007 at 23:12:38
41 Posted 06/12/2007 at 20:02:47
On the subject of plans "A" & "B". They don,t exist ,and, the reason they don,t exist is because they are" not deliverable".
Nobody with any business accumen is going to invest in a football stadium that won,t give them a return on their money.That means that E.F.C.would have to finance any move in the city.
Enter Tesco.The only way round the ban on in town superstores is to provide some sort of leisure or sports facility. If we agree to the move, they get their retail complex we get a stadium.Good business all round.
The next step is to make sure that any stadium is built to a standard befitting our great club.We may then see some serious investment in EFC .As it is I don,t hold out much hope of any money coming into the club if we stay where we are.
We all would like to stay at the Grand Old Lady,we all would like to stay in the city,but,as Jerry McGuire said "Show me the money"