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

Counting the cost

Comments (10)

Without wishing to impose on private grief, the serious problems faced by our neighbours over the funding of New Anfield are brought into sharp focus in today`s Daily Telegraph.

The article serves as an economics lecture for all those misguided souls who think OUR club would have a hope in hell of raising sufficient money to build a new stadium without the assistance of a Tesco. I bet that as I write Parry &Co are putting the flags out for a similar partner without which their super project will founder.

Good!I hear you say!
Sebastian  St.Clare, Harrogate     Posted 20/12/2007 at 10:38:01

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


Colm
Wonder what John Thompson will have to say for himself, as editor of the Liverpool Echo, if and when it all goes tits up across the park!!
Peter Fearon
1   Posted 20/12/2007 at 14:19:51

Report abuse

Naturally, I’m pleased at any setback encountered by the Dark Side. However, I’m assuming that no-one at Anfield will say, "I’ve got it, let’s leave Liverpool, find an economically and culturally blighted small town outside the city and re-invent ourselves there as another Wigan or Reading and build a stadium that is an adjunct to a supermarket checkout aisle." If only! I am trying to stay positive. Perhaps they’ll go belly up and then we’ll be the only Premiership club in Liverpool instead of them.
Shaun Brennan
2   Posted 20/12/2007 at 14:35:00

Report abuse

When does the planning permission become void?

How long have they got before the council can consider over plans.

Just a thought. Can someone clarify?
Clyde McPhatter
3   Posted 20/12/2007 at 14:52:27

Report abuse

In any redevelopment era, you have have to hit the crest of the wave just right or you crash right out. Arsenal hit the wave, and hae a facility that hasn?t hamstrung them in the marketplace. Liverpool has missed the financial wae where worldwide money was plentiful and cheap. It is going to cost a fortune for them in the Park, way more than they thought and way more than the Yank owners thought. This will not be the Emerates when it?s done, but more like Sir Freddie Laker. We, on the other hand, never got a chance to ride the wave. I think the Goodison Experience will be with us for a number of years to come. And if the financial markets contnue to suffer, we could be looking at grounshare talks again, not out of pleasure, but out of the monetary aspect of it. I think we are looking at 5 years for the new Anfield, and maybe much longer for the new Goodison. The financial markets have peaked, and the money for the work is just nor there.
Tom Hughes
4   Posted 20/12/2007 at 14:32:02

Report abuse

"The article serves as an economics lecture for all those misguided souls who think OUR club would have a hope in hell of raising sufficient money to build a new stadium without the assistance of a Tesco."

Where does it do that? Did Arsenal need Tesco? Can "a" Tesco equate to Bestway? Where is the pertinent comparison other than the use of the words "New Stadium"? The scale and cost of this project, and the whole funding process by which they took over LFC in the first place makes our predicament look like playing with the "petty cash". Where are the enabling projects for the Stanley park project that there would be for the Loop for instance? It would appear they made too many promises they couldn’t keep, and when they’re basically financing their purchase debt via the club’s income their prospects were always going to be tenuous which was predicted by many people on these forums
At what point does it make the case for redevelopment versus relocation? Could Liverpool go back along that route, viable plan B? I think the only point being made is that you can’t expect finance to be forthcoming for a massively ambitious and expensive stadium, when you’re in essence already in hock to the tune of hundreds of Millions. Very little of which relates to our position.
Gavin Ramejkis
5   Posted 20/12/2007 at 15:39:43

Report abuse

The new Analfield and the Tesco shed are so differing in plans and circumstances to make your argument a nonsense Seb. Tesco are not giving the club anything and could you tell me how the club would now be able to lend the £150m or sso to build and fit it as loaned money will all be hit by the saame economic market pressures.
Dave Roberts
6   Posted 20/12/2007 at 18:21:47

Report abuse

Why couldn’t we build our much maligned and obviously inferior stadium in Stanley Park if the new analfield goes tits-up? After all the principal of handing over this public space to a stadium is already in place. There’s plenty of room there for a Tesco Superstore as well! And maybe even an M&S..... and whatever other shops everybody despises with the Kirkby proposal.

Oh! But I forgot. We don’t want shops do we? And we certainly don’t want Tesco because they are crap and are only intent on taking over the world aren’t they and despite being an Evertonian and doing as much as he can for the Club, Terry Leahy’s really a shithouse isn’t he and we don’t want anything to do with him do we?. And besides, the Stadium design is crap too isn’t it? (despite Lyndon liking it once!) All plasticky and cowshedy!

The fact is, if the the Kirkby scheme was about to be built on Stanley Park, the Stadium design would be absolutely brilliant, Terry Leahy would be an Everton legend and Tesco would be our ’forever best friend’ and Bill and Keith would be lauded for engineering the best deal ever envisaged! That is what has annoyed me within the stadium issue over the last few months. If you don’t like Kirkby as a destination then fine, argue it out on that basis. But this constant slagging off of the design, of Tesco, of Leahy, of the Club and of anybody who is in favour of... or at least open-minded about the move is a disgrace.

But wouldn’t it be different if it was all aimed at Stanley Park? C’est la vie!
Kevin Mitchell
7   Posted 20/12/2007 at 22:37:50

Report abuse

Dave Roberts. If the Kirkby project was an absolute freebie for everton it still wouldn’t be a good deal for the club.
We need a larger capacity stadium with better corporate facilities to bring in more money to compete.
Whats the point in taking the club to a place were the majority don’t want to go and a large section of supporters wont go.
Any new stadium has got to attract new support and new corporate money.
Think of it this way, If LFC were moving out of the city how would you look at it then. We would be rubbing our hands in glee, we would be thinking, well thats them out of the way, we’ve got the place to ourselves now. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Brian Garside
8   Posted 20/12/2007 at 23:26:10

Report abuse

Have to agree with Dave. A new stadium on Stanley Park would be cheered by us all no matter who/how financing was organised.After all,it is our spiritual(REAL AND ORIGANAL) home !!!
roy coyne
9   Posted 20/12/2007 at 23:54:04

Report abuse

Dave Roberts if the stadium fitted all the criteria ,then yes I would applaud it in Stanley park,but the placement is only part of the problem,why do all the pro Kirkby fans think its just the location some of us are against,there are other things to be considered not least to me any how is how we pay are share for the free stadium that is not free, the deal of the century for who? these questions would still need to be addressed.
steve wolfe
10   Posted 21/12/2007 at 12:14:14

Report abuse

question for dave roberts;how much money has the staunch blue tesco terry given to everton??? how many corporate boxes are used by tesco?? how many advertising hoardings are at gp from tescos??enlighten me

© ToffeeWeb
Menu
OK

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.