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

Buster admits plan 'B'

Comments (67)

Keith Wyness has at last admitted there is a plan 'B' alternative to moving to Kirkby, and that is staying at Goodison. If that was to happen, then maybe their hands will be forced to start improving the ground. A new tier on the Park End stand with part of the alleged £78m would be a good start.

Maybe he is preparing us for the big thumbs down at Kirkby?
Brian Baker, Aldershot     Posted 30/05/2008 at 16:40:18

back Return to the Mail Bag


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

Lyndon Lloyd
To be fair Brian, "just being here at Goodison...." as he says was always the alternative and he said as much last summer so he's not really admitting anything. But, yes, if Kirkby falls through then I believe the club would be forced to look seriously at redeveloping the Old Lady.
Barry Scott
1   Posted 30/05/2008 at 19:19:35

Report abuse

He’s put himself in a predicament by saying Goodison Park can’t be redeveloped. He’ll end up looking more of a fool If the move doesn’t go ahead. He will either have to admit to misleading the fans and redeveloping or being pig headed and allow Goodison Park to be run further into the ground. I think he’ll end up resigning or being sacked.

Interestingly, in the survey results on KEIOC’s website were published today, of 3,000+ surveyed - 51% would prefer to rebuild Goodison Park and 7% would still like to move to Kirkby.
Colin Wordsworth
2   Posted 30/05/2008 at 19:34:43

Report abuse

..and we’re off!

another bogus vote from the no voters site!

amazing, quelle surprise!

groundhog day anyone!
Richard Jones
3   Posted 30/05/2008 at 19:54:54

Report abuse

I work in Market Research and have no affiliation or preference to Kirkby or Goodison.

The KEIOC poll is a poll from people who visit a site dedicated to particlar agenda. It’s a skewed result and should be taken as such.

If KEOIC were to fnd a DM research campaign rn by an independant third party(cost approx £20,000 including freepost returns) to justify their position they’d have a justifiable argument. However ntil they do so they will forever be seen as the ’minority view’ after the reslts of the official poll.

Richard Jones
4   Posted 30/05/2008 at 19:59:53

Report abuse

P.S. My U button sticks like a bgger!
Davey Militwitch
5   Posted 30/05/2008 at 20:08:23

Report abuse

Dont mess up your keyboard,
You should use an old sock or tissue paper, always does the job

Richard Jones
6   Posted 30/05/2008 at 20:42:42

Report abuse

You’re obviously an expert Davey...
Tom Hughes
7   Posted 30/05/2008 at 20:16:41

Report abuse


"However ntil they do so they will forever be seen as the ?minority view? after the reslts of the official poll."

I think employing an independent company to conduct the poll is as much as anyone can ask...... but as far as a "minority" is concerned, I think an almost 5:1 response to a very direct question, on a poll conducted across all the major Everton Websites points to the real current minority stance. A far more pronounced minority than that produced at the vote, not only when no alternatives were included in that process but were actually directly dismissed by the club. The gradual realisation of the real facts and issues over the intervening months, following the collapse of each of the pre-vote promises has turned many yes voters against the move (hence many threads on these forums regarding a switch in opinion), and has probably also inspired some of those who abstained or who weren’t eligible to vote. When exposed to any level of scrutiny or comparison, Kirkby could not even muster 10% of this poll, hence the reason why none was allowed in the original ballot, which was also conducted before KEIOC could fully mobilise their campaign. KEIOC’s stance had been vindicated long before this poll, this just reaffirms it IMO.
Colin Wordsworth
8   Posted 30/05/2008 at 20:59:11

Report abuse


have you actually read responses on other websites from fellow evertonians who feel conned by this vote!...........or are your rose coloured glasses still on?

.......just what facts and issues are you referring to.....?..........your argument is getting thinner and thinner!

...on the other hand..........10% of people on the no site have changed their minds!....

.....see statistics are east ain’t they!

Gordon Blair
9   Posted 30/05/2008 at 21:28:01

Report abuse


With the best will in the world, the tone of your posts pretty much detracts from any point you are trying to make.

However, to address your initial point, you clearly visit Toffeeweb, and certainly give the impression you support the move.

The vote on this site shows only 28% of the fanbase still in favour of the move. More tellingly, it is demonstrating a 22% swing of yes voters now against the move.

I can understand perhaps your cynicism of the KEIOC survey (although I am aware of a number of the regulars on the Grand Old Team forum - incidently, a traditionally heavily pro-Kirkby site - having completed the survey), but the survey on this site mirrors the trend, if not the exact result.

Now, you work in market research, when you have 2 separate surveys that both show the same story, with clear, statistically significant trends, surely that says something to the market researcher in you?
Mark Billing
10   Posted 30/05/2008 at 21:34:22

Report abuse

Please type in full coherent sentences so those of us not on your wavelength can attempt to follow what it is that you’re trying to say. I never did the shorthand course that you attended, but flippancy aside, this small favour on your part will enable the slower readers amongst the Toffeeweb audience to keep up with our agrument. Thanks.
(And yes, this is a 100% serious request)
James Mako
11   Posted 30/05/2008 at 21:54:27

Report abuse

I dont get why Colin is being shot down for making the simple point, that it is ridiculous to take a poll on an anti-Kirkby website as majority thought. As has been stated, if the KEIOC want to be taken seriously, then an independant vote is the only way. It's this kind of bullying and garb from the KEIOC on here and other sites that turns so many Evertonians from being on their side. As Lyndon pointed out, KW has never said anything different and hasn't fessed up to something with his latest ramblings. There has been a swing but basing it on very anti-move website polls is plain daft.
Colin Wordsworth
12   Posted 30/05/2008 at 22:01:20

Report abuse


I am flippant because of the bogus discussions placed day after day..........tiresome!

The vote that means anything has gone....dead ....buried!

until anything concrete happens we are all in the why come up with bogus statistics here and there...from a minority of fans....with a bit of mud flinging while you are at it!

Groundhog day meets the simpsons........or don’t you understand this either....dur!

ps statistics mean what you and anybody else want them to mean.....

Jay Harris
13   Posted 30/05/2008 at 22:13:08

Report abuse

did you only ever watch the Simpsons and Groundhog day.

Your posts are even more repetitive than the "No" argument.

I am not concerned about how many voted yes or no then or now the simple facts are that the vote was conducted in a shambolic way that only a used car salesman would use (sorry if you’re a used car salesman).

I quote:

"This will be a world class stadium"


"There will be state of the art transport"


"It is a virtually free stadium"


"There is no alternative no plan B"


Now which part of the word misleading dont you understand?

At least the KEIOC vote was open to all people (yourself included)and did not push people one way or the other.

Speaking for myself even if Wyness was not a liar I would not trust this board with managing a Chippie let alone the biggest move in Everton’s history.

ron leith
14   Posted 30/05/2008 at 22:23:03

Report abuse

I participated in a KEIOC vote which was based on a skewed questionnair asking a whole bunch of bogus questions. I believe the EFC was a straight yes or no. It was a proper vote not a manufactured vote. KEIOC needs to tell us what is their vested interest. Finally as somebody who is probably a little on the overweight side I think the No voters who talk about Wyness as a fatty are almost as bad as racists. Please will Toffeeweb ban such language.
Barry Scott
15   Posted 30/05/2008 at 22:19:07

Report abuse

Colin, people are discussing the same issue because they are interested in discussing it. As always if you believe a discussion to be tiresome, don’t join it.

If you believe the KEIOC vote was loaded then ask the people at ToffeeWeb to provide a similar question that you deem to be unbiased and I would wager that you will be in for a nasty shock when the result is announced.

Back on topic... there is no disputing that a Chief Executive on a six figure salary should have a long-term plan B should plan A not occure.
Tony Williams
16   Posted 30/05/2008 at 22:51:50

Report abuse

It’s not so much as a plan B but a "We cannot do anything else but stay here and try and redevelop it and hope it all turns out alrightish" plan.

I think what posters are saying about the KEIOC vote is that most of the 3000 voting would be regular visitors to the site. There were more than that who voted No in the ballot that actually meant something, so I wouldn’t start using that as a figure to try and berate the yes voters.

The original vote was a shambles as will any others that follow, there will never be a way to get a fiar result now. I voted in the original ballot but stopped half way through the KEIOC one with it’s loaded and leading questions.
Colin Wordsworth
17   Posted 30/05/2008 at 22:40:31

Report abuse


A reasoned article is good but I fear there is more half truths coming from the no side than anywhere!

Firstly.......define a world class stadium?......50000 all seater, some would say is world class, other people such as yourself look on the negative side. At the end of the day neither of us know!!

ah.....the old bugbear....transport.........who knows.....but still plenty of time for any issues to be addressed, not a great argument.

Define virtually free.......was this ever said?...but i do believe it will be a great deal for EFC, MUCH CHEAPER THAN ANY ALTERNATIVE!

The original vote was free, no body was forced either way.....we all have a thought process..........or was it that nasty positive slant the club put on the new stadium!

There have been plenty of opportunities to make petitions, marches etc against it.......but what?........a pathetic streamer behind what looked like a model plane at most home matches. That’s it......!

So, again a pop at kw!....why?......because he has taken the unprecedented decision to give us a vote whether to move to Kirkby or not?..

or because he has told us lies and lies and wants to line his pockets with all our money!

what a load of manure, really!

If keioc can come up with a realistic alternative it is about time they put their cards on the table!

...they can’t........the loop....bogus, don’t want us, redevelopment......too expensive......possibly not feasable due to planning and LCC!

So stop the smears, stop making bogus excuses and tave a heavy dose of reality.

It is all sounding like sour grapes!
Jim Lloyd
18   Posted 30/05/2008 at 22:53:09

Report abuse

There appear to be regular contributers on here, who support the move to Kirby, which is fair enough. I wonder though, why thy bother to come on to this, other supposedly "No" sites. I read no trace of doubt about the proposed move out of Liverpool in their posts. Yet the majority that I read have serious concerns about what could happen to the club we follow, if this move goes ahead.
Part of the argument used by thwese contributers is that "No voters are only a minority and can’t come to terms that the vote has gone against them. Another part of their argument is that there is no alternative. Again, when contributers like Tom Hughes,Jay Harris and others who know what they’re talking about, come on, the reposte is get over it you lost.
I wonder why they bother coming on really.
If they are so confident that this move is the right one, I wonder why I can’t find any sites run by the majority, the Yes voters. If there was I would willingly log on so that I could be shown the error of my ways in voting no. I would even be prepared to participate in a poll conducted by the Majority, if they are so confident that those who voted "Yes" months ago, are still happy to do so Perhaps they could point me to a Yes site.

John Andrews
19   Posted 30/05/2008 at 23:10:57

Report abuse

Colin, you must have a very short memory.
When first announced the stadium was mooted as being virtually free. I believe "The deal of the century" was how it was described.
Can you seriously believe that a stadium holding 50,000 people could be classed as world class ? Yes we do know Colin it will be the absolute minimum due to the lack of money available.
The transport situation is also cause for concern. At the moment the transport has not even been considered otherwise how do our mighty leaders expect 50,000 people, their figures not mine, to get away from Kirkby every other Saturday.
I did not realise that Wyness had given us the vote. I thought it was Kenwright as a way of covering his arse when it all goes tits up.
And yes Wyness has been more than economical with the truth. From "The deal of the century" to us owing somewhere in the region of £78m ! As, I believe, most of our assets have been sold off then where is this money coming from ? Ah but of course I forgot the naming rights. We are sure to make a fortune out of that.
Tom Hughes
20   Posted 30/05/2008 at 23:11:06

Report abuse

The poll was posted on ALL the main Everton fan websites, not just KEIOC’s. It’s results correlate roughly with other polls carried out recently.

If you don’t know what the real facts and issues are at this point I’m not sure you ever will. The only thing getting thinner and thinner are the numbers of people professing blind-faith in the "Deal of the Century." No-one, not even the club will stand behind the main vote-winning statements anymore, yet you choose to sweep them under the carpet as if they are no longer relevant. The main FACT and main issue is that what you voted for NEVER existed....... and even if its present incarnation did bare some remblance to the utopia it was painted (which is doesn’t), then even the most basic scrutiny and comparison exposes it as a poor option! The poll asked direct questions..... not just "Kirkby or doom".
Art Greeth
21   Posted 30/05/2008 at 23:22:45

Report abuse

Tom Hughes, a number of points:

1) The club was (and continues to be) berated for the wording of the single question that was asked at the ballot. There was no hidden agenda. The board openly declared that they recommended the move. Compare that to the KEIOC survey. Employing an independent company to conduct the poll is neither here nor there as far as giving greater credibility to the survey. Personally, I am more interested in knowing who drew up the questions and the offered options. Anybody, but anybody, with a truly discerning eye has to admit that both the questions and the available options offered in the KEIOC survey are very, very much skewered to guarantee a negative response to the Kirkby project.

2) For the reasons stated in 1) above, the ?almost 5:1 response to a very direct question? proves very little and does not necessarily point ?to the real current minority stance? as you suggest.

3) As you say, the poll was promoted across major Everton Websites. Clearly labelled as a survey by KEIOC (and given the wording of the survey questions) it is reasonable to assume that those most motivated to respond would be those opposed to Kirby. That alone would ensure an immediate bias. The survey was open for many, many weeks, and yet only just over 3,000 responded. That constitutes just 8% of the number eligible to vote in the club ballot. Maybe it?s your wording I?m not understanding here Tom, but I don?t comprehend your statement that this represents ?a far more pronounced minority than that produced at the vote?.

4) The club ballot was not about offering or voting on alternatives. Your comment here in reference to that is totally irrelevant. The club ballot and the KEIOC survey cannot be compared as like for like.

5) Very bold and sweeping statements Tom with regard to ?the real facts and issues? (has led to) ?the collapse of each of the pre-vote promises and has turned many yes voters against the move??? and ?has probably also inspired some of those who abstained or who weren?t eligible to vote??? Oh really? Care to substantiate those claims Tom?

6) Both you and Gordon Blair in this thread allude to forum threads and surveys showing a ?swing? against the move from those who previously voted yes. Again? really? How can either of you ? any one for that matter ? substantiate such claims given the porous nature of the Internet? Do either of you - again, anybody - truly believe that all that people claim about themselves on the net is true? Or? is it only the club and its officers that lie?

So? sorry Tom. I don?t share your conclusion that this very biased survey vindicates or reaffirms KEIOC?s and its supporters’ stance given the small number who bothered to vote and the very poor structure of the questions posed.
Jay Harris
22   Posted 30/05/2008 at 23:28:33

Report abuse

Colin there are no half truths in the fact that the stadium will not be world class and the transport promise totally empty.

I can define what’s not world class and that is the monstrosity proposed on decontaminated land on a Tesco car park and described by EFC’s own hand as Mid level.

The transport propsals have been torn apart by EFC’s own experts who downgraded it from a park and ride to a park and walk.

"Vitually free" was exactly the words attributed to Wyness.

There are no half truths in any of these statements they are fact which is why myself and many others (I dont know whether we’re a minority or majority) are so concerned.

I would sooner live in the shadow as the David in Goliath than piss off with our heads bowed to a cheap backwater cowshed waving the white flag as we go.

I dont care whether I’m in a minority or majority but as an Evertonian of 50 years standing want to express my view as I see it.

And to me Kirkby is just totally wrong the only box it ticks is it will be new build but how long will that last.
Tom Hughes
23   Posted 30/05/2008 at 23:41:22

Report abuse

I must commend you on the fastest typing ever!

Little else tho! ;)
Colin Wordsworth
24   Posted 30/05/2008 at 23:24:52

Report abuse

Jim ..and here’s me thinking I have put toether a reasoned non flippant article above!

What really is the point of poll after poll, argument after argument when what will be, really now will be!

There are 2 camps, both want what is best for the club and both feel they are supporting the correct path. As I’ve said before on these boards it really is heart against head! wasn’t me who thought the vote was rigged re keioc, have a look on blue kipper!

So, if the club has a fantastic deal on the table for a new stadium, why should there have to be a plan B?.......why waste time?.....we are in with Tesco not a mickey mouse company!

Tom Hughes
25   Posted 30/05/2008 at 23:42:59

Report abuse

I think 3000 is a very reasonable sample size, more than 1/10th of the number who actually voted which is well in excess of any mori poll used to predict election results etc...... considering that, I would also say that 5:1 is also pretty conclusive, to be honest just 3:1 would have been so.

You talk about options in the questions yet conveniently side-step the whole issue of not having ANY option in the original vote....... what’s that: one rule for the Yes argument and another for the No-argument? The whole point is, there was no room for discernment in the vote..... it was stated as "Kirkby or doom". The poll’s outcomes are clearly shown in simple graphical form and hardly need substantiating.
Colin Wordsworth
26   Posted 30/05/2008 at 23:45:49

Report abuse

Tom and Jay

You must be aware re my many previous posts on this subject that I didn’t vote for yes lightly.

But.......many of the arguments that are being aired are really just hot air.

The cost of the stadia will be below 78 million, and even if it costs that amount it is still a fantastic deal!

I remember when Sunderland moved that cost 35 long ago was that!.....and we will be getting a stadium of similar stature....

Tesco....not kw, cannot afford the stadium to be mickey mouse it would reflect too badly on them!

So, if this was being built in Bootle I do not believe you would bother......but why not?....ahhh the Kirkby factor!

So stop the bogus transport rubbish.....and any other excuse you can cling onto and just admit you don’t like Kirkby no more no less.

I can accept that argument, just stop flowering it up!
Bren Connor
27   Posted 31/05/2008 at 00:32:08

Report abuse

Colin, how can you dismisss as "bogus transport rubbish" the fact that hardly anybody would be able to get to the kirkby stadium by public or indeed, private transport?

One of the major considerations when building a public edifice is access to it (surprisingly). It would be more than useful for Everton fans to be able to get to the stadium SHOULD it ever be built.
Tom Hughes
28   Posted 31/05/2008 at 00:21:23

Report abuse

I worked in Transport Engineering for several years.... (In Kirkby ironically) I can assure you the transport issue is far from bogus..... it is absolutely fundamental! The transport strategy in its various leaked guises has been doing the rounds in that industry since before the vote even. The reaction it was receiving in those circles meant that it has been substantially ammended at least 3 times to my knowledge and wasn’t released for public consumption until it was no longer avoidable. Since then Merseytravel have bombed the whole notion of park and ride to spark yet another revision. None of this is indicative of a bogus argument. The £78m figure was reliant on full enabling cross funding. Tesco are not even applying for that level of enabling anymore, and even their revised application is the subject of yet another independent and damning report that has just been released by LCC. This means that cross-funding will be reduced still further. So that means there are at least 2 additional amounts to be added to that now outdated figure. By the way, Sunderland moved to within walking distance of the city-centre and all it’s major public transport hubs and is surrounded by thousands of dedicated parking spaces..... neither of which applies to Kirkby.
Gerard Madden
29   Posted 31/05/2008 at 01:03:32

Report abuse

The keioc survey was so obviously flawed, even in their own comments section a couple of people were saying it was easy to vote using a proxy server and making up an e-mail address - both easy things to do, someone said he voted 100 times because he was a fan of Walton Hall Park relocation. Interestingly the keioc admin had an hour by hour, minute by minute update of how the ’democratic’ and ’scientific’ vote (that wasnt overseen by the ERS) was going, far be it from dear ol’ little me to suggest that the keioc admin might have been tempted to....lets just say....’cook the books’ somewhat. ;)
Steve Williams
30   Posted 30/05/2008 at 21:28:43

Report abuse

Colours to the mast at the start so no ambiguity ... I’m a no voter and unless a compelling argument persuades me, I always will be. I just haven’t heard one yet.

But I also accept that the Club believes they have a mandate for change and will follow that unless major problems arise in the project.

However, almost inperceptably I feel a change in the wind regarding the club’s stance. They are now opening up the possibility of options. Why is that?

The only conclusion is that they recognise that there are real issues with the project. I doubt they have anything to do with opposition from no voters like me, but perhaps more to do with logistics, costs and financing.

Now instead of critising Keith Wyness and Bill Kenwright, personally I think they should be congratulated for ’looking after’ our club by showing flexibility and maturity in their decision making.

But I seriously doubt that either the no voters, who just want to hound people, or the yes voters who just want to belittle the no voters, will ever show appropriate humility to recognise this.

A little bit of mutual understanding and give and take has been woefully miss ng in this debate and, unfortunately, I don’t see it being brought to the table now. Shame.
Tom Hughes
31   Posted 31/05/2008 at 01:13:28

Report abuse

On the same comments thread this was refuted. One vote per id..... as with all the other polls that have been going around. Strange how they all seem to correlate. I assume you are ignoring the fact that the club were given day by day updates on the voting and flooded the media with now discredited propoganda as required, and the obvious flaws regarding lack of options in the ballot literature rendering the vote non-sensical. Not to mention the fact that the club provided the names of all those eligible to vote to ERS.... many receiving multiple votes (including myself), and many none at all! 5:1!!!!
Gerard Madden
32   Posted 31/05/2008 at 01:28:30

Report abuse

It was refuted by a keioc admin which is not the same thing as it being refuted. As was pointed out you only had to use one of the zillions of proxies that are available over the world wide web and it will be the IP of that proxy that would be registered, if I remember correctly a ’software engineer’ pointed this out too, of course its very easy to just invent an e-mail address. A very flawed vote indeed...
David Jones
33   Posted 31/05/2008 at 01:23:35

Report abuse

Colins argument lost any credibility it may have been clinging to at the point he claimed that a new stadium holding 50,000 people = world class. Biggest load of tripe i’ve ever heard. Build quality, design and surrounding area all play a key part in a stadium achieving such a status and unfortunately Kirkby doesn’t come close on any of those, I believe the planning application even refers to it as ’mid range’. Just another BK apologist unfortunately.
Tom Hughes
34   Posted 31/05/2008 at 01:23:40

Report abuse

The point is though.... that flexibility should be throughout but most particularly at the start of any decision process, not when forced upon you because reality comes home to roost. This whole episode could have been avoided if a proper process had been applied to find the best solution for the club regarding the stadium issue. As with any major project the starting point should have been a definitive and completely independent assessment of all the options. None of this has happened. Even the club’s (Tesco’s) own feasibility study of redevelopment is neither independent nor truly reflective of the possibilities at GP both in terms of the current footprint, and certainly not in terms of potential expansion..... furthermore it is dated several months after the vote meaning it is at best an after-thought. Everything points to making our needs fit Tesco’s solution .... i.e making the problem fit the solution instead of vice versa, that can never yield the optimum solution for us. It’s been back to front thinking from start to finish. The transport/finance issues have been highlighted on here and elsewhere since day 1, they have chosen to ignore them. This was extended to completely stonewalling any other possibilities at the Loop, WHP or elsewhere. These possibilities should have been encouraged and fully explored.... they weren’t! That, IMO could have been a catastrophic failure by the club to seek the best solution for our club’s future.
Tom Hughes
35   Posted 31/05/2008 at 01:58:48

Report abuse

It may be quite simple to invent an id, you seem quiet adept at it yourself..... it would take some effort to produce a 5:1 majority though(especially when in your eyes we are only a tiny minority to start with), especially with you as past master of the multi-id voting like mad for Kirkby. Did the yes voter who claimed to vote 100 times for WHP explain why he didn’t do that for Kirkby? Thought not!
Gerard Madden
36   Posted 31/05/2008 at 02:11:56

Report abuse

It would not take much effort at all for a group of keioc website admin to use the many zillions of proxy IP’s out there in the world wide web and to easily invent non-existent e-mail addresses to...lets just say...skew the result to near enough the way THEY want it to be presented as...In addition they had full access to the results as they were coming in....they could monitor them....very suspect survey in my opinion....
Tom Hughes
37   Posted 31/05/2008 at 02:26:29

Report abuse

Is that what happened on the TW poll too? How did that work at the last AGM, when only one shareholder spoke out in favour of Kirkby with the vast majority vociferously against it? To be honest, I think you’re giving away your own tricks more than anything else.

Chris Jones
38   Posted 31/05/2008 at 02:08:17

Report abuse

So, what is a "world-class stadium"?

If it?s a UEFA 5-star rated stadium then before you get excited remember only Old Trafford hits that mark in England (Wembley and the Emirates likely will as and when they apply for a rating). So, however, the Uefa rating is concerned with grounds eligible to host major finals and a significant part of the criteria laid-down is concerned with things like provision of press and VIP facilities and availability of hotel-rooms etc. etc.. For interest sake I think Goodison is already a 4-star so ultimately I think it?s pointless worrying about whether the Uefa criteria, it ain?t really going to inform our discussion.

Obviously what people actually think of when they hear the worlds "World Class" are ... ?iconic? and ?somewhere to be really proud of?. And so we are back to subjective thinking.

I like the look of the Eastlands and yet some one here have said many City fans think it?s shite?! I love the look of the Allianz Arena but I know we haven?t got the money for it (neither have Bayern really, it?s shared with TSV, and in any event belongs to neither).

So, what am I saying?

Well, the best we can hope for is the best we can possibly get for what we can afford to spend. If this doesn?t knock people??s socks-off then we have to rue the fact we don?t have more dosh.

If the money we have to spend would provide better results by tarting-up the Old Lady then surely a move, any move is a bad idea. If on the other hand we can get a lot of bang for our bucks because Tesco can subsidize what?s on offer in Kirkby, then in that respect the proposed move there it looks at least a little tempting.

What we need then is for Blue Bill to inherit someone?s billions.
John Taylor
39   Posted 31/05/2008 at 03:17:08

Report abuse

I?m a Yes voter for the simple reason that I live in Kirkby (was sick of hearing ppl downgrading it and ridiculing it) and thought it was good for the club. But, ever since the vote, I?ve lived with the regret of doing so ? something I feel was forced upon me without having time to consider other options.

Since then I have grew to despise the move and will be heartbroken if it does come through. I wish we could stick to our guns and force the issue withn LCC and see just how much opposition we have to the Walton Hall Park scheme considering just how many blues were brainwashed into thinking because LCC turned us down for building on green belt land in 1994, despite allowing Liverpool to follow thru with similar plans just 2 years later, how far we can get with the idea? I for one, if given the vote again would choose the WHP option as would my fellow matchgoer and cousin

Dave Wilson
40   Posted 31/05/2008 at 06:18:57

Report abuse

To listen to KW, GP wouldnt see the season out, it was falling down and rapidly becoming a hazzard, I thought we’d be issued with hard hats by Crimbo
redeveloping was always an option
The fact is, given the right TLC the old lady will outlive the lot of us

GM giving away his own tricks ?
He did that about a year ago
Gavin Ramejkis
41   Posted 31/05/2008 at 07:25:18

Report abuse

Chris Jones - guess who designed a certain Scottish five star european star stadium which has been redeveloped over the years to maintain it’s iconic structures? Archie Leach’s Ibrox, I’ve posted loads of times too that the facilities are only on a par with Goodison with v standard toilets and catering but with the SPL monopoly of virtually guaranteed CL football and massive support from success on the pitch they haven’t and would never consider moving to a backwater berg.

Subjective thinking would point you towards the Arsenal business model as something to inspire to; grow sucess on the pitch and use that as the stepping stone to development (why build a 50k stadium until you can guarantee 50k fans?) The basic premise of good project management and why so many projects fail always falls back on the business case; if during the project life cycle the business case no longer makes sense financially or strategically then the project MUST BE STOPPED, unfortunately BK doesn’t have the acumen to run the show and is leaving it to his CEO as that’s his job, the CEO won’t even discuss the matter or another basic premise of project management - the dismissal of alternatives prior to beginning the project with explanations as to why each alternative was dismissed. BK’s own words were about a new transparency with the fanbase but during the whole debacle of the vote wasn’t even in the city, instead running some theatrical karaoke/talentless show. To me that spoke volumes of "true blue" even more than his previous lies.
Kev West
42   Posted 31/05/2008 at 08:59:37

Report abuse

Where are we all going to sit while Goodison has a whole stand re-developed?
Anthony Fielding
43   Posted 31/05/2008 at 09:43:54

Report abuse

Gavin R.....

... You seem to have all the answers, maybe you should design a business plan, including funding etc and present it to the club????? Whether you agree with the Kirkby Project or not, the simple fact is that we need a new ground or better, bigger facilities at Goodison for increased, substainable income (i personally dont think we can realistically achieve this at Goodison, but thats not the point im making). Its ok saying we should follow the Arsenal model and build success on the pitch first, but we could be blowing money away on players for years before and if we ever challenge the big 3, look at Spurs.
Gavin Ramejkis
44   Posted 31/05/2008 at 10:06:11

Report abuse

Anthony F this is textbook stuff, if BK wants to pay me £400k a year I’ll develop a business model and strategy for him and know I would do a better job than KW. Funding of over £78m whether written by myself or anyone else would be the same; heavy bank lending securitised against future income streams most likely TV rights in the first instance. How would we be blowing money away on the pitch be any different from the flipside of building a stadium and only half filling it? Revenue streams need to be realistic and in the world of football if the team isn’t pushing for cups and competitions then it’s hardly likely to attract another 20,000 fans just because of a new stadium. Spurs, by the way, had a share rights issue to get their ball rolling and the initial outlay of investment on players came from new shares something BK and his board have now on record said they will not do.
Tom Hughes
45   Posted 31/05/2008 at 10:02:39

Report abuse

There are lots of examples of stadia being redeveloped with little or no reduction in capacity. Atherden Fuller managed it at Ipswich, and there have been several expansions of American and European stadia. For example..... We can add a tier behind the current Bullens and Park end stands with exec boxes at the back of the existing upper Bullens and around the corner into the Park end, but leaving a single extended tier at this end. This could be the largest end stand in the country and would greatly enhance the atmosphere. Looking from the St End all 3 stands would be as high as the Top Balcony. All upper tier obstructions could be eradicated by re-roofing on all sides. With the lower Bullens reduced in depth to greatly reduce obstructed views there. Result would be 53,000+ seats, only a few hundred obstructed in a unique combination of old and new. Much increased exec, and premier seat provision. Cost at £2,500-4,000 per seat (£35m-£50m) dependent on various parameters. Enabling development at the Parkend..... Hotel/residential/conference could greatly offset first phase costs, and since all new seats are being built behind current footprint, intermediate capacity need not drop below current levels. Of course this is just one potential solution of many.
Anthony Fielding
46   Posted 31/05/2008 at 10:46:31

Report abuse


.. I dont pretend to be a business man, but even i know that a business plan is not quite as simple as you’re suggesting. And secondly why are you pressuming that we wouldn’t get increased attendances at a new stadium??? I dont think KW would have been stupid enough to project we would fill the ground every week. The point of having a bigger capacity is so that we could fill it if we require, im confident we would get upto 45k most games and possibly full big games. Plus its not just about using the ground every other saturday for 9 months of the year. The main reason i think we need a new ground is because Goodison is not fit for its purpose anymore, its an accident waiting to happen. And it doesn’t matter where Spurs got their money from for players, because they have still blown a load of money on players in the last 3-4 years on players and have nothing to show for it. Spending money on the team can not garuntee success, look at Newcastle, Man City last year.


.. Im not quite sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that another tier could be added the the Bullens road stand on the same footprint?? Any new tier would have to comply with new safety regs and would require more space than we own. True you could add or increase the Park End, but then that does not solve the problem that all the other stands would need rebuilding in time. As for a hotel in the car park???? This for me is just a step up from the ’catering tent’ that is already there, plus anything decent would take up too much of the car park leaving no parking for staff, players, tv crews etc, im sure the players would love to park their cars on the streets around the ground and pay some scally £5 to ’look after it’. I would love to see Goodison redeveloped, but i think reallistically its not possibly on the land we have.
Chris Jones
47   Posted 31/05/2008 at 13:43:22

Report abuse

Replying to Gavin ...

I take your point about Ibrox, but really how much of Archibald Leach?s works is retained? And half at least of his iconic structures can no longer be seen at Goodison.

My first choice would always be to stay at Goodison if indeed it were possible. It is so unique in many ways and contains such a rich treasure house of memories. Would that it were possible to remain.

If we do move then wherever it is it will have to be special in other ways to soften the blow of leaving the Old Lady. As I have said before, a sense that we may have to leave prevails. I can?t see us sticking among the greats of English football unless something substantial happens to generate the money we need to compete - and moving to a new stadium may be what is required if we are going to do that (albeit I accept it brings no guarantees with it - just look at Soton for example!).

Here?s hoping the powers that be stumble upon the best long-term solution for our great club.
Colin Wordsworth
48   Posted 31/05/2008 at 15:36:24

Report abuse

So yet another days e-mailing and we’ve discussed the same old issues!


Tom you mention in your speel that we are on our third look at the transport problem! the club and others are attempting to address the problem.....good!....there is plenty of time yet!

with regards to me saying a 50000 stadia is world class.....may I suggest the numpties who read what I wrote do so again!.....i will accept the apology ta!

So the majority concencus is.....we cannot afford to share, and we cannot afford to revamp the old lady...mmmmmm!

ps it could still be the deal of the century....who really knows?

certainly not the know it alls on this website(and i include myself in this one!).

groundhog day anyone!

what next Tom.........share with’s got to be better for you than that horrible Kirkby!

Andy Willox
49   Posted 31/05/2008 at 17:16:12

Report abuse

Madden, you really do take the biscuit, it was actually YOU that posted of replying to the questionnaire 100 times.
You obviously have far too much time on your hands.
Gavin Ramejkis
50   Posted 31/05/2008 at 16:31:14

Report abuse

Anthony F a lot of our postings are assumptions but credibility of higher attendances is grasping at straws given our published attendances even with the last four years performances plus just how would even 45k get to the stadium in Kirkby should it ever happen and how would 50k?. Keith Wyness told Aberdeen their stadium was falling down and they had to move to a retail park to survive too, the same struggling Aberdeen who on the last day of the SPL at the supposedly collapsing Pittodrie who beat Rangers comfortably. You take the word of Keith Wyness as gospel yet anyone else is derided as not being a business person? There are many contributors on these pages from many backgrounds who have very valid points and considerable experience above and beyond Keith Wyness whose current sole qualification appears to be he is in the job.
Colin Wordsworth
51   Posted 31/05/2008 at 17:56:11

Report abuse


...and where are Aberdeen now in the grand scheme of things!..........who is to say that kw was not doing the right thing for them with the proposed new stadium!......but they are doing great they beat a Rangers side dead on their feet....whoopie!

re arrange this... foot i’ve shot myself just in the!

I think the attendance thing is the easy one...just look at every other new stadia built and the increase in attendances!
Anthony Fieldin
52   Posted 31/05/2008 at 18:09:36

Report abuse


Our average attendances over the past few years have been roughly 36k, it would have been more except for the 4k severely obstructed views, poor facilities and poor match day experience. Who wants to sit behind a massive post with hardly any view of the pitch, who wants to que for a pie n a pint for the whole of half time im cramp conditons, who wants to use the toilets where you have to wipe your feet on the way out?? I could list more damning points as to why a new or improved Goodison would boost attendances. I dont need KW to tell me what a state Goodison is in, i can see that for myself. And if moving to a larger better ground is not important then why have/are so many clubs doing the same eh?? Why are Liverpool spending £350m to move 50 yards over the road, why did Man City leave Main Road, why are Pompy looking to build a new ground, why did Arsenal move, why are Spurs thinking of moving, why did Sunderland move, why did we build a new Wembly eh?? And just to point out - Sunderland and Man Citys attendances have gone up since moving and they are crap, Everton are supposed to be the ’peoples club’ and have one of the best supporters around, we’ll soon see if we move wont we, who can call themselves a real fan, i’ll support Everton no matter where they play!
Art Greeth
53   Posted 31/05/2008 at 17:53:12

Report abuse

Tom Hughes, I would agree with you that 3000 is a very reasonable sample size gleaned from an Internet-based poll. However, unlike any actual ballot or poll (such as the club?s), it is completely random and unscientific. In a true ballot, voters meet some criterion to be eligible to vote. In something like a MORI poll you refer to, the pollsters approach the individuals canvassed. The KEIOC poll applied none of those factors ? it was open to all-comers.

Now there are pros and cons in that. On the one hand, people disenfranchised and excluded from the club ballot were possibly given a voice. People who indeed may have changed their opinions since the club ballot were also given an opportunity to state as much. Those who originally voted ?No? were given a further opportunity to do so. On the other hand, such an open poll ? especially one conducted on the Internet ? is open to all kinds of abuses and manipulation. That is not to criticise or belittle KEIOC?S initiative in conducting the poll. However, the validity of the poll and just who voted and why (IMO) IS open to question, as is the framing of the questions. Personally, I would have been surprised if this heavily biased poll HAD returned a 3:1 ratio which you would have considered ?pretty conclusive?.

As for saying I ?conveniently side-step the whole issue of not having ANY option in the original vote?, I dispute that charge. I clearly stated that you cannot make a direct comparison between the club ballot and the KEIOC poll. The club ballot wasn?t about offering options, nor was it stated as starkly as you term it - "Kirkby or doom".

Oh! And while I?m at it, you asked me a question on another thread which was closed before I could answer it, re: ?existing, concrete options?. Yes ? Goodison IS the existing, concrete stadium. However, it is NOT the only place containing our history and heritage. That has been accumulated down the years on many different playing fields, amongst many different people and events, never contained in glass cases at GP as your words imply. Our history and heritage, IMO, is both more ethereal and resilient than believing it is located ONLY in the confines of GP. It will not evaporate should we ever relocate. I accept EXISTING infrastructure at Kirkby is a challenge. I don?t believe it is an insurmountable one.

As I mentioned elsewhere, some say a move to Kirkby will be the death of EFC. Others argue it will guarantee the club?s future status and prosperity. Nobody - absolutely NOBODY - across that divide can say with 100% certainty that their position will be proved right. But IMO the continuity of Everton?s history, heritage and identity is NOT dependent on us staying at GP.

PS ? one last thing. Dunno what you are referring to, re: my fast typing skills? I posted at 23:22:45 in reply to your post at 20:16:41? that doesn?t even get the sympathy vote, let alone a bronze medal. Nice body swerve by you on all the other points I made, though? reminiscent of the Golden Vision in his hey day.
Michael Kenrick
54   Posted 31/05/2008 at 21:06:37

Report abuse

Okay, Wordsworth, one and only warnning:
No more "Groundhog day";
No more "Simpsons".

If you find the discussion "tiresome" and "boring" then don't participate. If you really must post, say something original. And please try to write it in coherent English sentences. Thank You!
Colin Wordsworth
55   Posted 31/05/2008 at 21:18:39

Report abuse


Quite rude, but hey I am sorry you don?t like my e-mail style!

Original, yes, as long as this applies to everyone else. Surely we are entitled to have our points however much they annoy others.

The tiresome and boring references were due to the fact the theme was just the same as the last theme, nothing being new!

Sorry if I have offended, but as I have intimated before, we all have opinions and sometimes the yes voters are being castigated puely for being a yes voter and this has got to be wrong!

The ground move is an extremely emotive issue and at the moment I feel the facts are being muddied, hence my flippant remarks.
Tom Hughes
56   Posted 31/05/2008 at 22:43:20

Report abuse


"Im not quite sure how you?ve come to the conclusion that another tier could be added the the Bullens road stand on the same footprint??"

I clearly said a new tier can be placed behind the existing stand. This could take the form of either an extended upper stand or a distinct new tier with 2-3 rows of exec seats served by boxes. At a rake of 34 degrees at least 20 rows could be added all achieving a minimum c-value > 60mm even with current touchline position. I have done a full sightline study of the existing stadium and outline scale drawings of this and several other formats. This would obviously require bridging of Bullens Rd, but considering that there are only 2 roads abutting it, only a very limited number of houses would be affected, and 20 rows (expansion of just 14-16m dependent on tread depths chosen) would barely infringe the school yard, which in anycase may only have a limited future. This would represent additional capacity of upto 5,000 seats alone.

"As for a hotel in the car park???? This for me is just a step up from the ?catering tent? that is already there,"

There is unlimited scope in terms of height restrictions at this end and the plot could fit any of the major hotels built in the city centre. A far cry from a tent! Car parking could take place on basement, or multi-levels therein thus giving greater capacity than the current arrangement. A hotel chain could be enticed by offering exec boxes convertable to rooms, Dining and conference facilities overlooking the world’s first purpose built stadium and all the historical features.... at a location that would also feed demand for the other lot. Their fans regularly pack our car park, and their international fans regularly strugle to fing hotel rms in Liverpool. All only 2 miles from a vibrant city that is several thousand hotel beds short of optimum, and on a main arterial route. Not to mention the prestige attached. It should also be noted that 50k capacity can be achieved by redeveloping the park end alone.
Tom Hughes
57   Posted 31/05/2008 at 23:17:12

Report abuse


"Tom you mention in your speel that we are on our third look at the transport problem! the club and others are attempting to address the problem.....good!....there is plenty of time yet!"

You’re missing several points. This was sold to you as the "most accessible stadium" going 12months ago. It wasn’t then and it still isn’t now. Hence the difficulty in proving it so! I stated on here at the time of the vote that it was simply not possible to move the numbers required through the bottlenecks surrounding the site. I knew the limitations since I had been involved with the Merseytram project with a lot of focus on the Kirkby infrastructure which we were based at in anycase, but to be honest anyone with any familiarity with the site and basic logistics would have known the glaringly obvious. The club’s own consultants have since admitted as much. Their solution was the fabled Park and ride scheme to try to make their figures work, this alone by definition would have meant that the scheme was not even as accessible as GP where we don’t need any park and ride scheme to make the figures work(NO other club requires one). When analised this grew into the biggest scheme in the country and has since been shown to be completely unviable hence the "park and walk/cycle" revision. As far as there being plenty of time, any planning application will need this sorting, and if spades in the ground are iminent they need to work some magic. Most people who’ve read the last transport strategy are still doing the "dying fly."
Michael Kenrick
58   Posted 31/05/2008 at 23:57:39

Report abuse

Colin, a couple of points:

You only started posting regularly on this website barely two months ago; the stadium debate has been going on a lot longer than that... among theose who wish to participate in it with some genuine interest ? not mindless flippancy. In that short period, you managed the pathetic Groundhog jibe TEN TIMES! It was stupid and unnecesary the first time....

And perhaps you could explain the dubious logic of your justification for this nonsense:
(1) It’s an extremely emotive issue (true);
(2) the facts are being muddled (only to the extent that the facts are very confused ? perhaps deliberately so from the proponent):
(3) therefore Wordsworth is justified in making flippamt remarks?!?! What twisted logic leads you to that ridiculous conclusion?

Wouldn’t it be more helpful, and put you in a better light, if you actually wrote something genuine and sincere about your view of things, and did your part to elevate the debate, rather than dragging it down to this level? There are plenty of internet blogs and feeback forums where you can go and act the fool. Please don’t do it here. We do not suffer fools gladly.
Dave Moorcroft
59   Posted 31/05/2008 at 23:27:27

Report abuse

Over the last 7 or so months since we had the vote, (we either move to Kirkby or "no plan B, Goodison falls down about us, and we wont even be able to get a fire safety certificate, we're all going to die" propaganda from Wyness). Having read maybe 80% of the posts on this site, I have come to the conclusion that the people who don't want to move to Kirkby are trying to put rational arguments forward. But the same people who have been arguing for a move to Kirkby just seem to be concentrating on personal attacks on the formentioned.

What I would like to bring to the attention to the people who are talking about taking this club to Kirkby is, I have in front of me as I type a programme from 1962-63 Average Att 51,000 acheived at Goodison Park. So don't tell me that GP won't work. Don't tell me or the thousands of other Evertonians to move on,or "Get over it".

Since this debate started, I have sat in every different part of the ground and I have only heard 3 people say they want to move to Kirkby (maybe i was in the wrong place at the wrong time). But on percentage wise I would say that most people didn't want to go to Kirkby. These people who want to take us to Kirkby don't give a monkeys about the consequences because they will be long gone to wherever they came from when the shit hits the fan.

So to all the decent people who want an open debate on the most important topic apart from your kids, I would not be arsed talking to the usual suspects. There all agents provocateuar.

Bilbo Baggins
60   Posted 01/06/2008 at 10:11:43

Report abuse

Just read LCC commissioned report from Cushman and Wakefield consultants, ALL you yes voters start getting ready to go back to Goodison, and implement Plan B.

Knowsley and Tesco are far from honest.....
Colin Wordsworth
61   Posted 01/06/2008 at 12:21:16

Report abuse


Yes you are correct in stating that I only started contributing a few months ago. This was after many months of enjoying what I did and probably do still consider to be the best Everton fansite. However I was becoming increasing concerned with the comments being made by the no voters and the bias I felt the site was giving them, almost an anti Everton stance!.

I have said my piece and will now only contribute when I have anything useful to say, I do know however that friends of mine no longer use your website for the reason I have mentioned above, which is a shame!

We all want what we think is good for the club and I have noticed that some yes voters have started to put the heads above the parapet, so to speak!

So, if I have put my point across ....good!.....if I have made a fool of what.

Basically I am one of many ?fools? on this otherwise excellent website!
David Hooper
62   Posted 01/06/2008 at 10:10:04

Report abuse

I just voted in your poll. At the moment you have 1069 who have voted and 50% of them want stay at Goodison Park. Wow! that's a massive 534½ fans who don't want to move. Please remember over 30,000 voted in the official poll and over half of them voted to move!!!!! whichever way its put, the No voters are in a small minority.
Bob Turner
63   Posted 01/06/2008 at 12:33:08

Report abuse

So, Dave, the "the people who dont want to move to Kirkby are trying to put rational arguments forward. But the same people who have been arguing for a move to Kirkby just seem to be concentrating on personal attacks on the formentioned".

Are you kidding me??

And I don?t particularly care for your insinuation that, as someone who believes in the move to Kirkby, I "don?t give a monkeys about the consequences".

Listen, mate, I love this football club as much as anyone else, and I?m not having you, or anyone else, suggest that, because I?m in favour of the move to Kirkby, I?m an "agent provocateur" or somehow not "decent" (your words).

Perhaps if you, and some of the other "No" voters, thought about it, you might realise that telling the "Yes" voters that they are wrong, stupid and don?t love the club is not the best way to persuade them of the risks of moving to Kirkby.

Tom Hughes
64   Posted 01/06/2008 at 13:21:01

Report abuse

Are you sure over 30,000 voted in the ballot? I think you will find you are a few thousand off, why the need to exagerate?
Didn’t over 10,000 vote against the move then .....? and wasn’t that even before we all knew that what was on offer bared no relation to what we would be REALLY getting at Kirkby? Do you really believe that a ballot today would yield the same result or anything close given the multiple deceptions that have been revealed? Only 7% voted for Kirkby in the recent Poll regarding a location comparison, with 5 times more people saying they would not vote for Kirkby now compared to those that would. (Incidentally only 41% voted for it in the original one). This poll was carried out by an independent body, and the sample size is large enough to be representative in their opinion. 5:1 is pretty conclusive! That’s why the vote was forced on it when it was, to prevent anyone scrutinising their proposals.
Michael Kenrick
65   Posted 01/06/2008 at 13:48:21

Report abuse

Dave Moorcroft, I agree with Bob Turner, the charaterizations you make are wrong and totally uncalled for. The personal attacks and needless labelling are a problem on both sides, as you yourself have just demonstrated.

I?ll reiterate something Colin Wordsworth said in his last message: "We all want what we think is good for the club." As with anything to do with the club, though, we don?t all think the same. Please respect that.
Tom Hughes
66   Posted 01/06/2008 at 13:38:10

Report abuse


"Perhaps if you, and some of the other "No" voters, thought about it, you might realise that telling the "Yes" voters that they are wrong, stupid and don?t love the club is not the best way to persuade them of the risks of moving to Kirkby."

Conversely, If that?s the only reason some yes voters are still digging their heels in, I would suggest they possibly don?t love the club as much as they fear losing this argument.

You should perhaps understand how much this frustrates and even infuriates some who believe this move could be catastrophic for the club, and who have attempted to show why. Repeatedly being to told to "just move on" because of a fundamentally flawed vote that is no longer valid after all the pro-Kirkby campaign statements have been discredited one by one, requires serious restraint by some of those who increasingly feel their stance has been vindicated.

I?m quite certain your intentions are sincere and that you do love our club, but continued faith in the Kirkby option simply because it is the one backed by the board and not a group of ordinary Evertonians despite the mounting evidence is misplaced loyalty IMO.

Bob Turner
67   Posted 01/06/2008 at 14:16:47

Report abuse

Tom, I agree, if this was the only reason why "Yes" voters are still digging their heels in, then their arguments are not valid, and maybe there are some "Yes" voters who are doing this.

Similarly, continued faith in Kirkby simply because it is the one backed by the board is also invalid.

But I have also read the opinions of other "Yes" voters who still believe that this is for the good of the club.

Their reasons, and mine, are not based solely in belief in the board, nor just to be arsey because we’re being called stupid etc, there are reasons why we believe what we do.

Just don’t assume that we don’t want what’s best for the club just because we have differing opinions, that’s all I was saying.

© ToffeeWeb

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.