The Mail Bag
Bellefield money for Kirkby?
Comments (26)
So the report in the Echo says that the money we have got from the sale of Bellefield was on the premise that it would be used to go towards funding a new stadium.... from none other than LCC.
I'm confused,does 'Destination Kirkby' fall within the boundaries of LCC? Is there another agenda? Does LCC mean for a stadium within the Liverpool boundary? My head hurts!
Paul Henshaw, Posted 20/02/2008 at 20:49:37
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
Michael Kenrick
I'm just astounded that the LCC are allowed to make such a request. How can it be within their rights to restrict what the proceeds of a property sale can be used for?
Jay Harris
1 Posted 20/02/2008 at 21:46:23
1 Posted 20/02/2008 at 21:46:23
Michael
I think there?s a planning clause that allows them to permit a type of development (i.e. Residential) as a change of use (i.e. from sport/recreation) as long as there is not a net (pardon the pun) reduction in that use (ergo a new stadium).
Anyway, I find the whole thing strange.I?m only surprised Deggsie?s not involved (but there again?)
I think there?s a planning clause that allows them to permit a type of development (i.e. Residential) as a change of use (i.e. from sport/recreation) as long as there is not a net (pardon the pun) reduction in that use (ergo a new stadium).
Anyway, I find the whole thing strange.I?m only surprised Deggsie?s not involved (but there again?)
Barry Scott
2 Posted 20/02/2008 at 22:26:29
2 Posted 20/02/2008 at 22:26:29
A new stadium or redevelopment of an existing stadium surely?
Dan Parker
3 Posted 20/02/2008 at 22:39:45
3 Posted 20/02/2008 at 22:39:45
But we have a new training facility. What’s that to do with the stadium.
Council tossers.
Council tossers.
Dan Parker
4 Posted 20/02/2008 at 22:40:48
4 Posted 20/02/2008 at 22:40:48
The council (not you guys :-))
Gary Marsden
5 Posted 20/02/2008 at 23:34:38
5 Posted 20/02/2008 at 23:34:38
Yet another example of Liverpool Council showing us that they dont care if we move to Kirkby or ’elsewhere in the region’. This on top of the news that Liverpool Council are still in favour of the tramline (if it gets resurrected) between the city centre and Kirkby knowing full well it helps the Kirkby case - another indication of their not caring about our move to Kirkby.
Jay Harris
6 Posted 21/02/2008 at 02:34:44
6 Posted 21/02/2008 at 02:34:44
Well you all know what to do.
Vote with your feet at the next elections - Get the reds out!!
Vote with your feet at the next elections - Get the reds out!!
Gary Sedgwick
7 Posted 21/02/2008 at 02:14:00
7 Posted 21/02/2008 at 02:14:00
Michael, I too am astounded that LCC can make such a request.
ay; as long as there is not a net reduction in that use. As Dan pointed out, we have a new, larger training facility. My thoughts are that a larger training facilty actually increases the use of the former Bellefield site, like for like.
To quote,
"A council report says: ?The assistant executive director accepts the sale of the Bellefield site is essential in providing capital for the club to provide a new or improved stadium. He also accepts that an improved stadium or new stadium, either at Knowsley or any other location in the region, is capable of providing significant regeneration benefits."
?However, in order to ensure such funds are only used in connection with a new stadium, he considers any permission should be subject to a legal agreement, such that the capital receipt from the sale of the site is only used for such purposes.
?The applicants have confirmed this would be acceptable.?
As stated before our new and LARGER training facility matches the stipulation that there is not a net reduction in the previous use as a sport/recreation site. Finch Farm is far larger than Bellefield. The facility was "loaned" to Barnsley before their game against LFC. That action exceeds the condition of the Council?s stipulation. The facility was used by another club as well as ours. Would Bellefield have been offered if it still stood? I cannot answer the question but you get my drift. The club had to purchase the Finch Farm site, why cannot the proceeds of the sale of Bellefield help to cover those costs? As I wrote, like for like.
My biggest concern though is the last line of the quoted text:
?The applicants have confirmed this would be acceptable.?
Have we, as a once proud club nearing greatness again, become so weak/poor that we accept the stipulation the money MUST go to a new stadium or be spent on improving the Grand Old Lady? I sincerely hope we have not.
The quote may be from lazy journalism/jingoism but that is what I and every other Evertonian read. It is how many of us keep up to date with the club, especially our overseas supporters.
My first reaction matched Michael?s. I could not believe LCC were able to place such a restriction on the sale. After reading the article I could not believe that our club agreed (possibly) to such terms. If the club did as reported I am one seriously miffed follower...
We are Everton.
ay; as long as there is not a net reduction in that use. As Dan pointed out, we have a new, larger training facility. My thoughts are that a larger training facilty actually increases the use of the former Bellefield site, like for like.
To quote,
"A council report says: ?The assistant executive director accepts the sale of the Bellefield site is essential in providing capital for the club to provide a new or improved stadium. He also accepts that an improved stadium or new stadium, either at Knowsley or any other location in the region, is capable of providing significant regeneration benefits."
?However, in order to ensure such funds are only used in connection with a new stadium, he considers any permission should be subject to a legal agreement, such that the capital receipt from the sale of the site is only used for such purposes.
?The applicants have confirmed this would be acceptable.?
As stated before our new and LARGER training facility matches the stipulation that there is not a net reduction in the previous use as a sport/recreation site. Finch Farm is far larger than Bellefield. The facility was "loaned" to Barnsley before their game against LFC. That action exceeds the condition of the Council?s stipulation. The facility was used by another club as well as ours. Would Bellefield have been offered if it still stood? I cannot answer the question but you get my drift. The club had to purchase the Finch Farm site, why cannot the proceeds of the sale of Bellefield help to cover those costs? As I wrote, like for like.
My biggest concern though is the last line of the quoted text:
?The applicants have confirmed this would be acceptable.?
Have we, as a once proud club nearing greatness again, become so weak/poor that we accept the stipulation the money MUST go to a new stadium or be spent on improving the Grand Old Lady? I sincerely hope we have not.
The quote may be from lazy journalism/jingoism but that is what I and every other Evertonian read. It is how many of us keep up to date with the club, especially our overseas supporters.
My first reaction matched Michael?s. I could not believe LCC were able to place such a restriction on the sale. After reading the article I could not believe that our club agreed (possibly) to such terms. If the club did as reported I am one seriously miffed follower...
We are Everton.
Alisdair Denny
8 Posted 21/02/2008 at 03:30:04
8 Posted 21/02/2008 at 03:30:04
Does it really matter anyway? I can?t remember how much we are getting from selling Bellefield, but say for example it is £15 million. We have already commited £50 Million or whatever to Kirkby anyway, so all the club does is reduce that commitment by £15 million, then top it back up with £15 million from the sale of bellefield. The net result - we use the money wherever the hell we want. It?s not really rocket science
Chris Briddon
9 Posted 21/02/2008 at 09:10:36
9 Posted 21/02/2008 at 09:10:36
Gary - I think you are getting a little pedantic.
Of course the parties ar egoing to find it acceptable, if not they wouldn’t be allowed to sell the land and get their £15m quid or whatever.
What would be the point in objecting, other than dragging the process out longer and costing more money!
Of course the parties ar egoing to find it acceptable, if not they wouldn’t be allowed to sell the land and get their £15m quid or whatever.
What would be the point in objecting, other than dragging the process out longer and costing more money!
David Smith
10 Posted 21/02/2008 at 09:35:33
10 Posted 21/02/2008 at 09:35:33
"What would be the point..." ?
Principle.
It used to matter.
Principle.
It used to matter.
Tom Rowe
11 Posted 21/02/2008 at 09:45:06
11 Posted 21/02/2008 at 09:45:06
Probably already spent on Yak anywho. Gotta pay off the overdraft at some point, money doesnt grow on trees.
Ravo Stanley
12 Posted 21/02/2008 at 10:05:41
12 Posted 21/02/2008 at 10:05:41
I’ve no problem with it as it stops Wyness putting it in his fat arse pocket!
Dan Walker
13 Posted 21/02/2008 at 10:15:11
13 Posted 21/02/2008 at 10:15:11
Gary, surely the conditions that the council are placing on the sale are directly related to the "added value" that the planning permission approval would add to the land?
For Everton to sell the land with pre-approved planning permission, they will realise a vastly inflated sale price.
In its current state, Everton would be free to sell the land to anyone they choose. But if they sold it without first obtaining any planning consents, then the market value would be much lower.
For Everton to sell the land with pre-approved planning permission, they will realise a vastly inflated sale price.
In its current state, Everton would be free to sell the land to anyone they choose. But if they sold it without first obtaining any planning consents, then the market value would be much lower.
Allan Hobbs
14 Posted 21/02/2008 at 11:01:03
14 Posted 21/02/2008 at 11:01:03
Since when did principles and business have anything to do with one another?
Joe Daly
15 Posted 21/02/2008 at 10:59:08
15 Posted 21/02/2008 at 10:59:08
Can someone explain how this in fact matters? It is not a conspiracy to get Everton out of the city, it was the LCC thinks is best for Liverpool, and they could well be right. Don?t say it?s the prinicple of the matter, I don?t see how prinicples are affected here, which ones do they compromise?
Jay - if anyone votes for councilors based on how they affected their football club we would be in a serious state.
Jay - if anyone votes for councilors based on how they affected their football club we would be in a serious state.
Jip Foster
16 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:05:20
16 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:05:20
Such planning conditions are common, much like if you were to build houses on a site then you would give money towards local school improvements etc etc (usually called Section 106 agreement from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). So it seems sensible for LCC to ensure that there would not be a shortfall of ’sports facilities’ (rather than the money being used to buy a player etc). However what is suprising, and rather telling, is that the council have not stipulated that the money remains in the LCC boundary. It appears LCC are resigned to the fact that were are moving to Kirkby, and perhaps therefore are now unlikely to put much effort into trying to help us stay in the city.
David Smith
17 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:20:38
17 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:20:38
Without wishing to go on about it..
It matters that an administration is placing a condition on granting a permit to build : said condition being an obligation to pursue a particular business strategy.
WTF has it got to do with LCC what any business (yes I mean EFC) does with any profits it makes in selling land ?
There are LCC regulations on planning permission or there are not - they cannot be conditional on a business strategy of the future seller.
Imagine EFC had not mentioned any plans for a new (or refurbished) stadium what would the LCC’s reply be to the permit request ???
[And I think someone mentioned already that the new Finch Farm is bigger then Bellefield so already conforms to the need to replace like for like.]
PRINCIPLE : LCC should have been told to stick their condition up their backside and leave EFC to get on with its own business.
Well that’s my reaction anyway (was that me knee jerking just now...).
It matters that an administration is placing a condition on granting a permit to build : said condition being an obligation to pursue a particular business strategy.
WTF has it got to do with LCC what any business (yes I mean EFC) does with any profits it makes in selling land ?
There are LCC regulations on planning permission or there are not - they cannot be conditional on a business strategy of the future seller.
Imagine EFC had not mentioned any plans for a new (or refurbished) stadium what would the LCC’s reply be to the permit request ???
[And I think someone mentioned already that the new Finch Farm is bigger then Bellefield so already conforms to the need to replace like for like.]
PRINCIPLE : LCC should have been told to stick their condition up their backside and leave EFC to get on with its own business.
Well that’s my reaction anyway (was that me knee jerking just now...).
Steve Ashton
18 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:34:38
18 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:34:38
Is Finch Farm definately in Liverpool, I have driven past it several times and can never decide if it is just in Liverpool, just in Knowsley or maybe even half in, half out!
David Owens
19 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:42:06
19 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:42:06
Going back to what Gary Marsden pointed out regarding the tramline. I think this is where the truth lies. LCC have been desperate for the tramline to be resurrected ever since it was shelved in 2005. They are of the opinion that every big city needs some sort of a modern tram system. As a consequence they see Everton moving to Kirkby, and in my opinion this has always been the case, as the only way to get the tramline to Kirkby resurrected.
Chris Briddon
20 Posted 21/02/2008 at 14:45:41
20 Posted 21/02/2008 at 14:45:41
Whilst I understand about the principles, I fail to see that it would do any good, other than dragging out the process for much mich longer and delaying any income we get from selling the site.
As pointed out, we need money to build a stadium so does it really matter if thats where it goes, its just a case of reorganising the funding a bit if it wasn't already ear-marked for there (which it may have been anyway and could be why they didn?t object)
As pointed out, we need money to build a stadium so does it really matter if thats where it goes, its just a case of reorganising the funding a bit if it wasn't already ear-marked for there (which it may have been anyway and could be why they didn?t object)
Neil McKinney
21 Posted 21/02/2008 at 15:15:11
21 Posted 21/02/2008 at 15:15:11
I suppose it doesn’t matter really, but I do take issue with LCC dictating how the money is spent. As stated above, there is the issue regarding loss of sports facilities to be replaced by residential, but Finch Farm is the replacement! So therefore wht the fuck has it got to do with LCC how we spend the money.
However, it has been pointed out that we would have most likely pumped it into the stadium anyway, so no point objecting. Still feel that it’s a bit of a liberty.
However, it has been pointed out that we would have most likely pumped it into the stadium anyway, so no point objecting. Still feel that it’s a bit of a liberty.
Robert Carney
22 Posted 21/02/2008 at 17:03:20
22 Posted 21/02/2008 at 17:03:20
All, this goverment as an atrocious record on devolopment application appeals.
Tesco, until quite recently (if ever) have never lost one. I am sure they will advise the LIAR and Fat Bastard
I would hold my breath if I thought this would get not past a good lawyer. It gets Liverpool City Council and shithouse politicians off the hook. They will say in three or four years time we tried to help.
Like Scudamore said yesterday, the fans come way down the list.
I also thought Liverpool people were the wisest when it comes to be taken for a ride.
The pair of arseholes who have instigated this mess could be in for a rude awakening yet.
Tesco, until quite recently (if ever) have never lost one. I am sure they will advise the LIAR and Fat Bastard
I would hold my breath if I thought this would get not past a good lawyer. It gets Liverpool City Council and shithouse politicians off the hook. They will say in three or four years time we tried to help.
Like Scudamore said yesterday, the fans come way down the list.
I also thought Liverpool people were the wisest when it comes to be taken for a ride.
The pair of arseholes who have instigated this mess could be in for a rude awakening yet.
Dan Walker
23 Posted 21/02/2008 at 18:34:02
23 Posted 21/02/2008 at 18:34:02
Finch Farm is not owned by EFC, it is leased.
So it wouldn’t qualify as a "like for like" replacement (ie. EFC isn’t using the funds from selling one to buy the other).
So it wouldn’t qualify as a "like for like" replacement (ie. EFC isn’t using the funds from selling one to buy the other).
Robert Carney
24 Posted 21/02/2008 at 23:03:04
24 Posted 21/02/2008 at 23:03:04
Dan, you are right. But it is surely a lot less to buy than a new stadium.
We are dealing with Tesco Mafiosa here. They have Kenwright well and truly locked in.
That's is why we are in this position. It could even end up as Leahy?s retirement hobby.
We are dealing with Tesco Mafiosa here. They have Kenwright well and truly locked in.
That's is why we are in this position. It could even end up as Leahy?s retirement hobby.
Eric Myles
25 Posted 22/02/2008 at 01:16:46
25 Posted 22/02/2008 at 01:16:46
Well if the LCC can place such a restriction on the sale of Bellefield surely they can do the same on the sale of Goodison also?
So the Club will have to replace 2 sports sites with equivalent use land presumably WITHIN the LCC boundary?
So the Club will have to replace 2 sports sites with equivalent use land presumably WITHIN the LCC boundary?
Simon Page
26 Posted 20/02/2008 at 17:52:19
26 Posted 20/02/2008 at 17:52:19
I was just wondering what the fuck Liverpool council has to do with what Everton Football Club spend their money on. I understand that planning approval for the Bellefield development is contingent upon this matter, but I was just wondering if they had any say in this, and surely Tesco or Knowsley council may have more to say on this.
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
