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
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
1 Posted 20/02/2008 at 21:46:23
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?)
2 Posted 20/02/2008 at 22:26:29
3 Posted 20/02/2008 at 22:39:45
4 Posted 20/02/2008 at 22:40:48
5 Posted 20/02/2008 at 23:34:38
6 Posted 21/02/2008 at 02:34:44
Vote with your feet at the next elections - Get the reds out!!
7 Posted 21/02/2008 at 02:14:00
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.
"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.
8 Posted 21/02/2008 at 03:30:04
9 Posted 21/02/2008 at 09:10:36
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!
10 Posted 21/02/2008 at 09:35:33
It used to matter.
11 Posted 21/02/2008 at 09:45:06
12 Posted 21/02/2008 at 10:05:41
13 Posted 21/02/2008 at 10:15:11
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.
14 Posted 21/02/2008 at 11:01:03
15 Posted 21/02/2008 at 10:59:08
Jay - if anyone votes for councilors based on how they affected their football club we would be in a serious state.
16 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:05:20
17 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:20:38
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...).
18 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:34:38
19 Posted 21/02/2008 at 13:42:06
20 Posted 21/02/2008 at 14:45:41
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)
21 Posted 21/02/2008 at 15:15:11
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.
22 Posted 21/02/2008 at 17:03:20
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.
23 Posted 21/02/2008 at 18:34:02
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).
24 Posted 21/02/2008 at 23:03:04
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.
25 Posted 22/02/2008 at 01:16:46
So the Club will have to replace 2 sports sites with equivalent use land presumably WITHIN the LCC boundary?
26 Posted 20/02/2008 at 17:52:19