ToffeeWeb - Season 2007-08

Gareth Prytherch
1 Posted 16/01/2008 at 18:19:35

Sorry, but I actually quite like the Kirkby plans (if not the location) and I honestly think it looks ten times better than the Hearts propsal.

Karl Masters
2 Posted 16/01/2008 at 18:36:30

Their stadium looks similar to Kirkby, although a bit smaller, but more respect shown to tradition on the outside.

Think this just highlights how runn of the mill our design is - on a par with Hearts, or Blackburn for that matter. Jesus!

With things going so well on the pitch, the stadium issue is the one black cloud that needs sorting out.

Chris Masey
3 Posted 16/01/2008 at 18:41:57

This is a 23000 stadium. Sorry disagree, its nothing on our proposal.

Dave Turner
4 Posted 16/01/2008 at 18:47:43

As an Edinburgh resident, as far as I was aware the Hearts stadium is basically building a new stand on the current one to up the capacity to around 23,000..

Not really building a whole new stadia, will say though they do make better pictures for it than our lot did, credit there.

Joe McParland
5 Posted 16/01/2008 at 18:42:22

The main problem here is that hearts are owned by a man named Vladimir Romanov, who owns a Lithuanian Bank.
He is therefore in a better position to finance this new stand than Blue Bill is to finance our new stadium. Hence the need for Terry Leahy and Tesco.
By the way the goings on at Tynecastle make St.James a really attractive proposition.

Chad Schofield
6 Posted 16/01/2008 at 18:29:32

Not going to bother looking as I think I’ll just find it depressing. I was amazed when I looked at the "artist’s impression" of Kirkby. I’ve always had a rule that I wouldn’t eat from any fastfood "restaurant" where the pictures of the food don’t sell it. I’m not solely saying I base everything on marketing, but at the end of the day, you know it’s not healthy, however if they can’t be bothered with attention to detail at that stage, then it is unlikely they’ll have remembered to washed their hands after wiping their arse or worse.

Obviously, MacDonalds are the kings of luring you in with marketing, and then disappointing you with a lack of sustenance, but with this we’re not even being lured in.

I realise that almost every topic ends up around the Kirkby debate, and lots of people from either camp have put in their opinions. But I still can’t believe how we are and have been railroaded on this. The vote was meant to be about moving, but not necessarily to Kirkby. Whilst I have read the dismissive comments regarding any of the other proposals and have basically resigned myself that Kirkby will undoubtedly happen, one of my major objections is that the plans look like they were knocked up by my Nan - which is odd, as she’s been dead a few years and was computer illiterate.

I just hope that it’s going to better than the slap dash presentation we’ve had so far. As for the moment, I’ll definitely pass on Bill and Keith’s garlic mayonnaise.

Mick Mac
7 Posted 16/01/2008 at 18:58:35

Sorry Andy I am afraid I dont agree with your comparison. I quite like the Kirkby proposal and once we are in there we will all like it I think. Well perhaps not all, but once we are watching the match we wont bother. It will be a talkingpoint before each game I expect.

Shaun Kinnair
8 Posted 16/01/2008 at 19:02:37

Being a blue and coming from Edinburgh. It’s not going to hold more than 23,000 the staduim. I’ve been to a few hearts games while I’ve been up here and it’s got nothing on Goodison as it stands. The place is a shit hole and it’s only one side of the ground there redeveloping.

So dont bother thinking its better than Kirkby or Goodison because you couldn’t be far wrong.

Dave Wilson
9 Posted 16/01/2008 at 19:06:25

Kirby will not happen

Joe McParland
10 Posted 16/01/2008 at 18:42:22

The main problem here is that hearts are owned by a man named Vladimir Romanov, who owns a Lithuanian Bank.
He is therefore in a better position to finance this new stand than Blue Bill is to finance our new stadium. Hence the need for Terry Leahy and Tesco.
By the way the goings on at Tynecastle make St.James a really attractive proposition.

Alan Kirwin
11 Posted 16/01/2008 at 19:22:20

Andy Birch: Calm down, lie down. It’s a stadium less than half the size of ours and, like most, I don’t see what it is that you find so orgasmic about it. It’s plain and it’s small. Why is the grass always greener with some people? because it just isn’t. Stop wasting your time looking for dark clouds and go for a pint, or read a book on positive thinking.

Ian Ankers
12 Posted 16/01/2008 at 19:45:33

I Too am not impressed with the hearts stadium plans. it looks bland and unimpressive. Not overly keen on our Kirkby plans either, but out of the two stadiums i’d take ours over the hearts designs any day!

Lee Spargo
13 Posted 16/01/2008 at 20:12:14

his is just a new main stand, and you want to cmpare that with a brand new 50k stadium in the middle of a £400m development?

You’re mad.

Rob Hollis
14 Posted 16/01/2008 at 20:52:54

Andy

there is no sign of a Tesco in their plans so where will they get a pre-match lunch for £3.00?

You don’t realise how lucky we are.

Alan Clarke
15 Posted 16/01/2008 at 21:11:49

There’s no comparison with Kirkby. Hearts’ new ground should be compared with Swansea or Darlington.

Also, Dave Wilson, if Kirby doesn’t happen, might Kirkby?!

Jay Campbell
16 Posted 16/01/2008 at 21:11:39

That’s because the Kirkby project is amateurish and shite.
Again another club that are re-developing their ground and not moving.

Dan Adams
17 Posted 16/01/2008 at 22:45:20

I think Hearts should be commened for not creating flashy, over-rendered images unlike our lot have,every time I look at Kirkby I see a large shed behind all the rendered effects.

John Charles
18 Posted 17/01/2008 at 02:34:22

You know all in all, if a credable alternative exists apart from Kirkby then why has it not been brought inyo light?

Yes yes the loop, yes yes redevelop goodison - its like saying I want to build my house on the moon, its probably possible, but I have no plan on how i could afford it.

If someone can show me in detail how we can afford Goodison, the loop or indeed a 23,000 Tynecastle i?m all ears.

Yes yes lyndon...i hear your arguement coming, but really, no one, not one person on the KEIOC side has ever given us even a credable outline on how the loop or goodison is paid for. not once.

Barry Scott
19 Posted 17/01/2008 at 02:33:03

Any news on the loop site since according to the planning documents Liverpool County Council have "discounted the site in recent weeks"?

I think a public statement from LCC would put a spanner in the works if it?s an unfounded statement.

Brian Williams
20 Posted 17/01/2008 at 09:39:27

Gettin’ a bit tired of even gettin’ involved in this....but!

If you want a true representation of what Kirkby wouuld be like visit brox.

It’s a carbon copy by the very same builder. I work in Scotland and even the Celtic fans (away from their mates) admit that Ibrox is a traditional type footy ground with a good atmosphere.

Tom Hughes
21 Posted 17/01/2008 at 10:22:51

John Charles,
You are asking for something off a small group of Evertonians (KEIOC) that you have not yet got off EFC and Tesco..... i.e. definitive costs. These are a handfull of people campaigning in their spare time. They all have their own fulltime jobs/businesses and lives to lead, whereas the club have had teams of people working full-time for over 18 months..... yet, you still don’t know the final cost of Kirkby, and that’s before you go into the numerous imponderables regarding the effects on identity/heritage, the increased inconvenience due to the transport issues etc. Yet mysteriously, the club can instantly commission reports with supposedly accurate costs for redevelopment once it became only too obvious that the initial vote-winning assertion that this was a stadium for practically nothing (as little as £10m pre-vote) was total nonsense. The reasons they haven’t nailed a figure throughout the whole process are obvious. The reasons figures for the Loop haven’t materialised is because Bestway simply haven’t been given any encouragement by the club. Their initial outline proposals were dismissed out of hand despite them coming from the world’s leading stadium architects. Would you throw anymore money at something if the door has been shut in your face. As regards redevelopment, the club should have asked an independent stadium design consultancy to assess the possibilities at GP...... not the companies employed by Tesco to make Kirkby happen. The glaring ommisions/mistakes in their assessment of GP/Loop render their motives only too obvious.

Gerard Madden
22 Posted 17/01/2008 at 11:29:33

There is simply no comparison between our new 5-star 50,000 (Extendable to 60,000) stadium that is designed for CL football and Hearts small ground. Our new massive built in club museum/stadium tour and megastore within the new stadium will be more impressive than Hearts ground on their own!

Tom Hughes
23 Posted 17/01/2008 at 11:47:27

"There is simply no comparison between our new 5-star 50,000 (Extendable to 60,000) "

I thought it was extendable to 75,000. Or, have we knocked that particular myth into touch now as just another well timed Wyness soundbite uttered to dismiss any other option.

I agree, it is difficult to compare stadia of different sizes, some criteria do change slightly with scale, however, I think you will find that the viewing quality, both in terms of sightlines and viewing distances (as you would expect) will be far superior at Tynecastle, where the satnds are very steep. Viewing distances at Kirkby, without overlapping tiers, and poor utilisation of corners will be much bigger than we are currently used to, as well as viewing angles with the far greater intimacy (closeness to the pitch) at GP. 5 star accreditation is another thing. At 50,000 it would only just qualify in terms of capacity, there are several 5* stadiums that would not be desirable blueprints for Everton, so it means very little, if indeed it is true.

Andy Macfarlane
24 Posted 17/01/2008 at 12:07:36

Actually, to be fair to Andy Birch?s posting, I think he was referring to the "presentation" of the development being better than ours, rather than comparing the actual proposed stadia. And I have to agree with him. Although I have always been a reluctant, but resigned, "yes" voter, it was not until I saw the detailed architects plans recently made available that my fears that we might be saddled with a "Riverside" type shell evaporated. Maybe a better / revised and combined presentation by the Club might win over a few more people, or at least lower a few people?s blood pressure

Gerard Madden
25 Posted 17/01/2008 at 12:18:28

Tom, the stadium will be 50,000 (Extendable to 60,000) - I think those who bought up the idea of 75,000 were simply stating the fact the Kirkby site is not as small and as landlocked like Goodison or the loop are and that there’s space there if we ever need to go beyond the 60,000 in the decades ahead but that would require a planning application at that time - that’s all.

Tom Hughes
26 Posted 17/01/2008 at 12:34:33

Gerard,
According to the transport consultants at the Kirkby consultation expansion to 60,000 alone will need a new planning application nevermind a further 15,000 capacity. Their transport studies can only just flog the figures for 50,000 seats, and that’s with over 90% of parking within the Liverpool side of the M57, and with the biggest park and ride scheme in the country. Conversely, the Loop can physically accomodate the emirates, with further bridging of southern end of the site for instance making the options limitless in terms of capacity and transport. Meanwhile GP is bordered on one side by a few end terraces, and a school that may be moving soon anyway. On the otherside by a pub and a block of derelict shops and completely open at the Park end. Have Tesco said that they would allow the stadium to expand to this capacity? Wouldn’t it affect their store, perhaps even physically?

John Charles
27 Posted 17/01/2008 at 14:35:27

Tom Hughes:

And that is the difference. While I have no doubt you are skilled in your field and I very much admire your efforts you hit the nail on the head.

While EFC and Tesco dont providse concrete figures -but do provide more details (for instance Wyness explicitly told us it needs 500,000sq/ft of retail to finance the scheme) you guys have give us nothing liek that.

And that's my point - I trust a massive company like Tesco and Everton do actually have a plan, a small group of Evertonians do not.

I am certain Everton have looked at financing the loop and Goodison - why would they not?

Greg Murphy
28 Posted 17/01/2008 at 14:35:14

Tom Hughes - dead-on as per. It would be laughable, wouldn?t it, if it wasn?t so lamentable (btw is Wyness still filtering the Kirkby "tram" inevitability into his loose rhetoric too, in the hope no-one will notice).

Tom Hughes
29 Posted 17/01/2008 at 14:42:16

John,
The assessment of redevelopment of GP by KSS was dated October 2007. Months after the vote, and years after Tesco planted the seed in BK’s lug. Proof therefore, that they therefore had not looked at the costs, and how could they have with the Loop plan which was only revealed a few days before the vote? The KSS spokesman condemning the Loop site admitted that he had not even looked at the HOK report at the recent AGM. The fact is Tesco are driving this, and the exclusivity and various other processes show that EFC have not really looked at the alternatives, regardless of the size of Tesco or whoever. The actual redevelopment assessment was carried out by the company responsible for making Kirkby happen for Tesco, it contains several glaring ommisions and some plain and simple mistakes.... again despite the size of the organisations that commissioned it.

John Charles
30 Posted 17/01/2008 at 15:17:12

No reason to doubt you Tom, but it still doesn?t give me a reason to say "oh The Loop, oh New Goodison" . I -personally- am willling to trust a big company like Tesco and our Board that they have a detailed plan for kirkby...

.. and again, two wrongs dont make a right. No financing plans for goodison, no financing plans for the loop.

Some No voters seem to think the Board want to go to Kirkby to make money for themselves, but even if this is the case why is that a bad thing? If the Board are making money off it it means the club is increasing in value right?

I understand the setimental arguement indeed... I just don't like it when people spout drivel like this guy as about how Hearts are getting something better than us.

Anyone would think we?re moving to Stockport to play at a shoe box or something the way its carried on.

Chris Whitby
31 Posted 17/01/2008 at 15:25:43

There is no possible expansion into the corners looking at the Hearts proposal.You would have to redevelop the stands to fill in the corners.I dont see any real comparison with our proposal for Kirkby.Kirkby looks a much better ground although i would prefer it was elsewhere but dont see how we could finance it anywhere else.

Tom Hughes
32 Posted 17/01/2008 at 15:53:43

John,
The point I’m trying to make is the whole process has been back to front. I would have expected the club to assess all the possibilities before committing to any option. In effect the club have been sold one option and have committed to it, and have later asked the people who have sold them it to convince us that the other options are non-starters. There are not two wrongs here just one fundamentally flawed approach. They could have commissioned any number of outline assessments inviting tenders for GP’s redevelopment. This has not occured judging by the late arrival of KSS’s report. Of course Tesco have detailed plans, they need to build a stadium to get their plans off the ground. It doesn’t mean that it is the right or only option, and it still does not state the final cost to the club. If it did, stadium architects could assess what could be achieved at GP for the same amount, and that’s why it has not been revealed. Don’t forget we were originally told that this was for practically nothing, that is now somewhere between £50-100m. That alone should ring alarm bells regardless of Tesco’s involvement. I’ll not go into trusting of Tesco’s dealings since there are plenty of websites on this subject.

John Charles
33 Posted 17/01/2008 at 16:44:31

But Tom, I just dont believe that the Board haven?t looked into redeveloping Goodison and its costs and funding.

To me ? with my admitted limited knowledge ?redevelpoing Goodison cant work obviously without our own vast sum of money.

But anyway, old ground. None of us are 100% happy about Kirkby ? even a Yes voter like me ? but you do the best for progress and getting better overall and I think we?re going to get better overall.

We?re going to Kirkby, so lets just accept it and get behind the team and club.

Tom Hughes
34 Posted 17/01/2008 at 17:33:59

John,
You don’t have to believe me, just look at the date on the Redevelopment report, look at the name of the authors. They are Tesco’s own consultants, and dated long after the exclusivity deal and the vote. EFC were asked for their studies for redeveloping GP for months before the vote to prove that they had persued this option. They couldn’t produce them. Gp can even be brought upto 50,000 seats with the addition of just one new stand at the Park-end..... this will never cost the same as Kirkby. The rest of the stadium can be greatly modified or redeveloped in stages like the vast majority of stadia around the country as and when demand/funds allow.

John Charles
35 Posted 17/01/2008 at 19:34:43

Hi Tom..

I?m always interested to hear your opinions as I realise you way more into this with detail then I am.

One thing I do not understand -and I am asking to be enlightened - what possible motive does BK as chairman have to relocate us to Kirkby over redeveloping Goodison? I know Wyness has his bonus for it (-note: I stuggle to believe a CEO would risk his career reputation by acting in his own best interests rather than his companies..thats called gross misconduct and he would struggle to find a job again)... I just don?t see how the chairman has less facts than guys like you and still says okay to kirkby.

I guess its a matter of trust. My eyes are open.. I know all about everton spinning things for there advantage, but I still trust them on kirkby and I sincerely do not believe for one moment NewGoodison is an option. No cost planning, no enabling development of any reasonably credable size, loss of income during building, need of city council to put a compulsary order on housing etc etc.

The new goodison deign you did looked fabulous and I believe you when you say it is possible.. but unfortunately no one as creative as you seems to exist on the financing side of that plan.

Like I have always said though, I see the arguement and give credit to rational ?no? arguers for keeping those that be accountable. Anyways... Shite playing villa monday night, 3 pts at wigan are all i?m thinking about!!

Barry Scott
36 Posted 18/01/2008 at 00:19:05

Madden, if you feel you are being abused or bullied in any way on here then click on the report abuse link. That is what it is there for, the mailbag is not for you to fill with your delusional sense of suspicion, persecution and grandeur.

Tom Hughes
37 Posted 18/01/2008 at 11:24:25

John,
I can’t really speculate about BK’s or KW’s motives for Kirkby, but I have read other people’s opinions on the not too healthy reasons for them picking Kirkby (or more pertinently having it picked for them) and sticking to it. Incidentally KW tried similar at Aberdeen I believe, and failed and many questioned his motives there too, but it had little effect on him turning up at GP. He also has other business concerns that he runs in parallel to his CEO role, so i don’t believe his future prospects are totally reliant on what Kirkby does for Everton FC. His brief appears to be just to get us there, and his tactics have been very direct and uncompromising throughout. And, regardless of how it turns out, he and BK can always say they had the fan’s consent. They will always appear blameless, they have covered themselves.
I can remember BK talking about his personal business acumen at an AGM a few years ago, he said that his business plans and transactions for even his biggest theatre productions were "back of an envelope" in complexity and depth. He doesn’t profess to understand the whole stadium issue at all. He was sold this idea by Leahy over a simple conversation as was intimated at the last AGM, and it has practically evolved from a simple "gentleman’s agreement" to explore Tesco’s ideas through to the stifling "exclusivity agreement" onto an all options barred steam roller. He’s perhaps gone too far down that road to turn back and in anycase feels sufficiently vindicated to finally publically back it, KW staked his whole reputation on "No plan B" and "costing Practically nothing". Hence his aggressive campaign against anything remotely threatening to these assertions. There is no flexibility there at all. Therefore we are left with a one-way street, a one option vote (unless you count "doom"), and this must never be the case in any Design/decision process.

You say your eyes are fully open to it, yet can you even now tell me the final cost of this stadium to EFC? Or how that compares to say building just one new stand at GP, and modifying the others? Or, 2 or 3 new stands built over several seasons? I doubt you can, and I’m certain you couldn’t during the vote, and that’s not anyone’s job but the club’s if they are going to have any meaningfull vote or take such a massive decision these figures should be at their/our fingertips......