The Mail Bag
Is Kirkby designed for success?
Comments (17)
Just say, for skae of arguement, that Kenwright et al are right and the location of Kirkby is correct. By correct I mean that it allows us to reach our long-term goal of regular Champions League football, attracting bigger named players. (Bear with me here...)
We are playing in the biggest league in the world already, so we can then attract a new fanbase, as location is not as important as television or success when new fans decide on who to support. And, after a number of years of sustained competitiveness with the elite of Europe, we are ready to return to our place alongside, if not above, Liverpool and Man U.
So, if Kirkby is a success, we shall be playing in a 60,000 stadium, Liverpool 73,000 and Man U at least 76,000. Hmm.... Kenwright et al can't have much faith in Kirkby reaching our long-term goals then, can he? The white flag is up before we've even started.
Where are the options for expansion? Why isn't each stand built to one day hold an additional tier? We all know that the new stadium isn't designed for atmosphere, whether the corners are filled in or not, but why isn't there options not to have a bowl shaped stadium?
If Kenwright did have faith in Kirkby then he would have allowed it to one day be the same size as our competitors. So what are we going to do if Kirkby is a success? We won't be able to expand to the same size as our competitors, we'd have to relocate 4 miles down the road..... to Skem!
Derek Turnbull, Posted 27/06/2008 at 10:34:43
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
Tommy Coleman
2 Posted 27/06/2008 at 15:11:33
2 Posted 27/06/2008 at 15:11:33
Loved the last line.
I disagree with the move to Kirkby but it is set in stone. All we can do is complain on this site but that won?t get us very far. They will re-shape the plans, change the design, decrease the size, just whatever it takes to get us there.
To have an Everton following in 50 years time we will have do all those things stated about success, otherwise Everton FC will just be another average small club with no realistic chance of reaching the top ever again.
I disagree with the move to Kirkby but it is set in stone. All we can do is complain on this site but that won?t get us very far. They will re-shape the plans, change the design, decrease the size, just whatever it takes to get us there.
To have an Everton following in 50 years time we will have do all those things stated about success, otherwise Everton FC will just be another average small club with no realistic chance of reaching the top ever again.
Paul OHanlon
3 Posted 27/06/2008 at 15:26:13
3 Posted 27/06/2008 at 15:26:13
To answer the question in your title...NO.
Dan McKie
4 Posted 27/06/2008 at 15:33:38
4 Posted 27/06/2008 at 15:33:38
The problem with our location, Derek, is it doesn't relate to the team in naming terms, if you think of the city of Liverpool then most outsiders be it in England or anywhere else think of Liverpool FC. Most people who know their football know where we are but we struggle to add to the current fanbase beyond kids supporting them because their dad does! This however still wont change when we move to Kirkby!
Bob Turner
5 Posted 27/06/2008 at 16:19:42
5 Posted 27/06/2008 at 16:19:42
Two other clubs who apparently have the white flag up (by the same criteria):
Chelsea - current capacity 42k, planning to expand to 55k
Arsenal - previous capacity 38.5k, current capacity 60k
But of course, you only picked the 2 clubs whose capacities, current and future, backed up your argument....
Chelsea - current capacity 42k, planning to expand to 55k
Arsenal - previous capacity 38.5k, current capacity 60k
But of course, you only picked the 2 clubs whose capacities, current and future, backed up your argument....
Andy Crooks
6 Posted 27/06/2008 at 17:34:25
6 Posted 27/06/2008 at 17:34:25
I?m a bit alarmed by Tommy?s post.... Is the move to Kirkby really "set in stone"?
Phil Bellis
7 Posted 27/06/2008 at 17:27:00
7 Posted 27/06/2008 at 17:27:00
So Dan, if I read you corrrectly you’re stating we are lesser-known amongst the geat unwise because we don’t have our town’s location in our name? (Birmingham Villa, anyone?)
Should we, then, be renamed Kirkby Rovers if this move goes ahead? Will that do the trick for our world profile?
Or is it more likely the ignorati of the football world who don’t know where Everton come from but DO know of the City of Liverpool won’t have a clue or give a toss where Kirkby is?
Some youngsters will support the successful, local team, regardless of upsetting their parents; I fear there will be many more young Scousers opting for our big city neighbours as the ’local’ team in the future if this move goes ahead. God prove me wrong!
Should we, then, be renamed Kirkby Rovers if this move goes ahead? Will that do the trick for our world profile?
Or is it more likely the ignorati of the football world who don’t know where Everton come from but DO know of the City of Liverpool won’t have a clue or give a toss where Kirkby is?
Some youngsters will support the successful, local team, regardless of upsetting their parents; I fear there will be many more young Scousers opting for our big city neighbours as the ’local’ team in the future if this move goes ahead. God prove me wrong!
Derek Turnbull
8 Posted 27/06/2008 at 20:04:44
8 Posted 27/06/2008 at 20:04:44
Re Bob Turner. Shall we compare the Season Ticket prices for Chelsea and Arsenal to the prices for Man U and Liverpool? North West clubs need larger attendances than the Southerners in order to compete. By the way, you do know that Arsenal believe they made a mistake in only having 60,000 don’t you? Even if Kirkby’s a success the stadium is still a failure.
Jay Campbell
9 Posted 27/06/2008 at 20:17:13
9 Posted 27/06/2008 at 20:17:13
Kirkby will make a estimated (according to KW) life-altering sum of £10 million every season.
Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, will be quaking in their boots at the superstars we?ll sign with that money.
Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, will be quaking in their boots at the superstars we?ll sign with that money.
Bob Turner
10 Posted 27/06/2008 at 20:22:29
10 Posted 27/06/2008 at 20:22:29
Derek Turnbull, shall we take a look at how much our gate receipts have been in the 2 seasons before last season:
2005 - 06 £18.1m
2006 - 07 £17.1m
Then look at how much broadcasting revenue we got:
2005 - 06 £26.3m
2006 - 07 £27.5m
Conclusion: Everton get more money from Sky than the fans.
Then look at how much the RS got from finishing in the semi-finals of the CL - £21m!!
An extra 10,000 seats at £500 a season ticket would give us an extra £5m a year - better than a kick in the teeth, yes, but a mere half of the "life altering sum of £10m" Jay Campbell mentions, and less than a quarter the RS got from the CL.
Of course, that?s before you take into account the cost of building the extra 10,000 seats....
Incidentally, the Emirates Stadium cost £430m, somewhat dwarfing the £78m for our own 60,000 stadium. (Having said that, I haven?t mentioned the increase in turnover from £137m to £200m, nor the increase in profit to £51m - sounds like a monumental fuck up to me!)
Finally, "Even if Kirkby?s a success the stadium is still a failure" - eh???????
2005 - 06 £18.1m
2006 - 07 £17.1m
Then look at how much broadcasting revenue we got:
2005 - 06 £26.3m
2006 - 07 £27.5m
Conclusion: Everton get more money from Sky than the fans.
Then look at how much the RS got from finishing in the semi-finals of the CL - £21m!!
An extra 10,000 seats at £500 a season ticket would give us an extra £5m a year - better than a kick in the teeth, yes, but a mere half of the "life altering sum of £10m" Jay Campbell mentions, and less than a quarter the RS got from the CL.
Of course, that?s before you take into account the cost of building the extra 10,000 seats....
Incidentally, the Emirates Stadium cost £430m, somewhat dwarfing the £78m for our own 60,000 stadium. (Having said that, I haven?t mentioned the increase in turnover from £137m to £200m, nor the increase in profit to £51m - sounds like a monumental fuck up to me!)
Finally, "Even if Kirkby?s a success the stadium is still a failure" - eh???????
Derek Turnbull
11 Posted 27/06/2008 at 20:49:27
11 Posted 27/06/2008 at 20:49:27
£5 million a year and rising at the cheap rates plus the extra spend per head is a lot of money.
The cost of building the seats will be cheaper than the return, otherwise no one would ever expand.
The only extra cost we would need to concern ourselves with at the moment though is the additional cost of building a foundation that would eventually support an additional tier.
Allowing for an extra tier on each stand would allow the stadium to reach 75,000 without the corners being filled in, include the original corners and you have 85,000. There are 8 stages of expansion to reach this, with constant options on how it can be done.
If Kirkby as a location is a success then, would you be happy with attendances being 13,000 short of Liverpool?s and at least 16,000 short of Man U?s per match?
The cost of building the seats will be cheaper than the return, otherwise no one would ever expand.
The only extra cost we would need to concern ourselves with at the moment though is the additional cost of building a foundation that would eventually support an additional tier.
Allowing for an extra tier on each stand would allow the stadium to reach 75,000 without the corners being filled in, include the original corners and you have 85,000. There are 8 stages of expansion to reach this, with constant options on how it can be done.
If Kirkby as a location is a success then, would you be happy with attendances being 13,000 short of Liverpool?s and at least 16,000 short of Man U?s per match?
Bob Turner
12 Posted 27/06/2008 at 22:20:49
12 Posted 27/06/2008 at 22:20:49
Derek
Tell me the cost of the foundation to be incurred now, and then the cost of the seats and additional works required when expanding, and I’ll be able to tell you whether I’d be happy with 60,000.
However, since we don’t have the money to pay the £78m it is currently costed at, we’d obviously be borrowing this additional £x m. (Remind me how much it has/will cost Man Utd and the RS to expand/move...)
If you believed everyone on here, though, we’re in the realms of fantasy even discussing 60k - but, personally, I’d consider that a successful move.
Tell me the cost of the foundation to be incurred now, and then the cost of the seats and additional works required when expanding, and I’ll be able to tell you whether I’d be happy with 60,000.
However, since we don’t have the money to pay the £78m it is currently costed at, we’d obviously be borrowing this additional £x m. (Remind me how much it has/will cost Man Utd and the RS to expand/move...)
If you believed everyone on here, though, we’re in the realms of fantasy even discussing 60k - but, personally, I’d consider that a successful move.
Jay Harris
13 Posted 27/06/2008 at 22:47:38
13 Posted 27/06/2008 at 22:47:38
One point seems to have eluded everybody especially Bob Turner.
Our great partners KMBC have a capacity restriction on the Kirbkby Tescodome of 50,401 so waht is the point in building a 55,000 or even 60,000 stadium when, even if you could fill it, you can't... if you see what I mean.
Now I seem to remember the loop got bounced because Wyness decided it could not hold 75,000 whereas Kirkby had the potential so does that mean that Kirkby should now be bounced in favour of a stadium that could and has held 75,000+
= GP.
Our great partners KMBC have a capacity restriction on the Kirbkby Tescodome of 50,401 so waht is the point in building a 55,000 or even 60,000 stadium when, even if you could fill it, you can't... if you see what I mean.
Now I seem to remember the loop got bounced because Wyness decided it could not hold 75,000 whereas Kirkby had the potential so does that mean that Kirkby should now be bounced in favour of a stadium that could and has held 75,000+
= GP.
Stewart Oakes
14 Posted 28/06/2008 at 00:01:17
14 Posted 28/06/2008 at 00:01:17
If all those years ago we had moved from Anfield to Kirby instead of GP would Bill Kenwright, my dad, most of you and me be blues now or would we have been reds?
Derek Turnbull
15 Posted 27/06/2008 at 23:22:54
15 Posted 27/06/2008 at 23:22:54
Bob
The cost to allow for an extra tier on each stand now should not be that much. It?s more a question of designing the stand with common sense in mind with regards to expansion. ie leave room behind each stand to expand, have each stand at a gradient that will allow for an extra tier, a roof that can be removed at a lower cost in the future, the outside shell of the stadium will join up with the new stand built directly behind it. It is also an excuse to leave the outside fairly ulitarian, even save money on how it looks, at least on 3 sides.
The San Siro is a stadium that has been expanded through the years. The first stage of the San Siro did not specifically have expansion in mind, rather it did not have any obstacles to prevent expansion, if you get the difference. Designing it now with the option of additional tiers in mind will only make it easier and cheaper in the future. It?s also an opportunity to stay state of the art, in 15 years time the new tier can be fitted with the latest gadgets of the day, so the stadium stays modern.
If you want exact costs ask Everton, its up to them to explain why they are selling our future short and for how much. Are we risking not buying a new Right Back this summer in exchange for the possibilty of Kirkby being a success and missing out on a ?Rooney? every 4/5 years in the future for example? But I doubt they?ll be able to tell us, anticipated costs of stadia are rarely accurate.
Jay Harris, I am aware of your point. which further enhances my point that, even if Kirkby does have the makings for success, it will still fail to meet our aims.
The cost to allow for an extra tier on each stand now should not be that much. It?s more a question of designing the stand with common sense in mind with regards to expansion. ie leave room behind each stand to expand, have each stand at a gradient that will allow for an extra tier, a roof that can be removed at a lower cost in the future, the outside shell of the stadium will join up with the new stand built directly behind it. It is also an excuse to leave the outside fairly ulitarian, even save money on how it looks, at least on 3 sides.
The San Siro is a stadium that has been expanded through the years. The first stage of the San Siro did not specifically have expansion in mind, rather it did not have any obstacles to prevent expansion, if you get the difference. Designing it now with the option of additional tiers in mind will only make it easier and cheaper in the future. It?s also an opportunity to stay state of the art, in 15 years time the new tier can be fitted with the latest gadgets of the day, so the stadium stays modern.
If you want exact costs ask Everton, its up to them to explain why they are selling our future short and for how much. Are we risking not buying a new Right Back this summer in exchange for the possibilty of Kirkby being a success and missing out on a ?Rooney? every 4/5 years in the future for example? But I doubt they?ll be able to tell us, anticipated costs of stadia are rarely accurate.
Jay Harris, I am aware of your point. which further enhances my point that, even if Kirkby does have the makings for success, it will still fail to meet our aims.
Bob Turner
16 Posted 28/06/2008 at 09:02:49
16 Posted 28/06/2008 at 09:02:49
Because, of course, Jay, that restriction is set in stone, and will never be amended....
I was merely adopting the common practice of the "No" voters which is to ignore and not comment of points which may not help their case. What’s sauce for the goose and all that...
I was merely adopting the common practice of the "No" voters which is to ignore and not comment of points which may not help their case. What’s sauce for the goose and all that...
Derek Turnbull
17 Posted 28/06/2008 at 11:19:57
17 Posted 28/06/2008 at 11:19:57
Just a further pont Bob, fast forward say 15 years after the stadium has been built. We come to a point that we need to expand. The board would have to decide how much to expand by.
Just say we feel that the effort for 2500 is not worth it we’ll go for 5000. We can compare the cost of 2 corner stands to the cost of one additional tier on an end stand.
If we say 7500 to increase by we can compare the cost and speed of 3 corners to one side tier. We may decide that we want to keep all four stands separate and go with that side tier. After the side tier is in place on a 57500 stadium we still have options for expansion. We may choose to add an end tier to reach 62500, or the other side tier to reach 65000. We will still have the options of adding 4 corners and 2 end tiers. It’s also about options, not just about the ultimate capacity.
Just say we feel that the effort for 2500 is not worth it we’ll go for 5000. We can compare the cost of 2 corner stands to the cost of one additional tier on an end stand.
If we say 7500 to increase by we can compare the cost and speed of 3 corners to one side tier. We may decide that we want to keep all four stands separate and go with that side tier. After the side tier is in place on a 57500 stadium we still have options for expansion. We may choose to add an end tier to reach 62500, or the other side tier to reach 65000. We will still have the options of adding 4 corners and 2 end tiers. It’s also about options, not just about the ultimate capacity.
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 27/06/2008 at 14:44:57
Alan Willo, Madden et al.
"We ALL love the Tecsco-dome, we ALL love the K-Blues, but if we don’t move to Skem now...."
Etc.