The funding is to be from the following:
ESR Funding £110M
Securitisation of New Stadium Naming Rights £25M
Sale of Goodison Park £7M
Sale of Bellefield £4M
Long Term or Syndicated Debt £19M
Equity Funding £30M
Supporters Trust fund £25M
6.1.4 The main element of this funding plan, Equity Seat Right (ESR), provides a contribution through the securitisation of corporate seats. This methodology provides stadium funding yet adds no debt the club. The company responsible for marketing this financial product, Stadium Financing Capital Group, normally expect to finance the construction cost through 10% of the seating capacity being handed over to ESR, but after discussions with a representative it was felt that the club demographic would only yield £110M. The loss of corporate revenue during the season can be offset by an outsourced operation of a 200 bed Hotel, Conference & Banqueting facility, similar to those operated by Millennium Copthorne at Sheffield, Reading and Chelsea.
As I read this, we have to build a 200-bed hotel to fund this 'securitisation' out of the same money and then give away some of the most profitable seats for an undefined amount of time?
5,000 corporate seats are going to be worth £50-100 a game and that adds up to £5-10 million a season at today's prices.
Capethorne makes £160 million out of nearly 100 hotels worldwide. It will be very difficult to make £5 million in Liverpool.
£25 million from supporters? If we are to take that figure seriously we need some indication that there are people willing to pay ? the clubs demographics would suggest not.
Neither of these suggestions are thought through enough or based on solid enough foundations to convince me that their alternatives have more than a faint chance of success.
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 14/03/2009 at 20:03:05
It was interesting that the recent KEIOC video’s only mention of funding a new stadium was a vague reference to "innovative financing methods" or similar wording. Trouble is that innovative financing is now very, very out of fashion and the odds of securing this cash is now tiny. Everything I’ve heard suggests that it will be many years before banks are able to indulge in innovative financing.
This isn’t to say that the poxy £6m pa extra revenue makes the move to Kirkby worth it, but I think KEOIC have a long way to go before proving that their plans are viable.
2 Posted 14/03/2009 at 21:51:50
The interest on the borrowings is likely to be £8 to 10 million a year so that has to be covered before any extra profit is generated.
The only thing that?s highly likely for Kirkby is a ticket price hike of about 30%.which, together with the distance from the city, the difficulty in getting to and from the ground, and a cow?s arse of a stadium should be enough to ensure only diehard Evertonians will go and future generaqtions will be deterred.
3 Posted 15/03/2009 at 05:38:30
4 Posted 15/03/2009 at 09:58:43
And finally, for a country deep in recession that raised £57m in one night for charity ? money is there and it?s available to spend given the reason to spend it, only trouble with many fans and supporters would be a stubborn block to bail out a Board they dislike and distrust immensely.
5 Posted 15/03/2009 at 13:18:30
6 Posted 15/03/2009 at 13:02:18
KEIOC appears to me to be a group of supporters who have got together and cobbled up various proposals which, when examined in detail by those who have reasonable ability to be able to do so, prove to be virtually impossible of realisation.
Many supporters don?t like the prospect of moving out of the city, even if it's on the outskirts, as it is... but, for many others, the prospect of spending the forseeable future in a Stadium laid down around 100 years ago is hugely depressing.
When I first visited Goodison Park, nearly 80 years ago now, it was largely the same as it looks today. Incredible really. At that time it was the wonder of the football establishment but that was around 80 years ago. Times have moved on and new and vastly improved stadia are commonplace today.
So many supporters rabbit on about the history of ?The Old Lady? but to me that doesn't alter the fact that it's old and decrepit and, in parts, quite disgusting, e.g. toilets. That's what they are supposed to be!
4 miles to Kirkby, moan so many of those who probably live in Walton. Grow up, many of the regular supporters live three times or more than that from Goodison and turn up regularly whereas there are odd supporters who come from much further away places. Are they less ardent fans than the first mentioned?
This incessant moaning must really get up the noses, not only of the Board, the much maligned Board, but of David Moyes who badly needs investment, wealthy owners who are never going to be interested in Goodison Park!
I think the time is far past when we should all get beind the Board and support them in the best way possible to advance the fortunes of Everton FC.
7 Posted 15/03/2009 at 14:01:24
The Kings Dock development was set to realise enabling finance to the tune of 90% of the stadium?s costs. This was because Downtown developments are far richer in scope and value than out of town single storey retail parks. No-one wants to build skyscrapers in Kirkby.... meanwhile until the current recession kicked in and even now there are plenty of large developments taking place in and around the city centre with still a big shortfall in hotel rooms evident. That?s why even with mighty Tesco?s involvement Everton are still having to fund at least 80% of the construction cost of something that was supposed to cost practically nothing....... yet some continually forget this to deride KEIOC?s figures.
As far as Goodison looking the same as it did 80 years ago, I?d suggest you may need new glasses, 2 sides are substantially younger than that. Indeed, only one side dates from 80 years ago. I suggest people should perhaps read up on the demise of out of town stadia in the US, and the reverence shown to the likes of Fenway and Wrigley field etc.... obstructed views galore! Some won't realise what they have lost until it's gone, and we?re all crush loaded on Kirkby?s Bombay express after waiting 2 hrs in the rain..... I wonder if they?ll make themselves known then!
8 Posted 15/03/2009 at 14:25:53
I suggest you re-read it and then realise that it will be nowhere near £220M of ?debt?.
9 Posted 15/03/2009 at 15:33:15
Secondly ,and more importantly, a top-class stadium in a vibrant city has much more chance of succcess and will give a better return on investment than a difficult to get to mausoleum in the middle of nowhere.
While GP may be old and decrepit in some parts, it is not about to fall down or be closed down and I for one would sooner see investment in the team and wait until the RIGHT site comes available ? or reconsider developing GP over time, which has been costed up by different parties ranging from £40 million in 2001 to £85 million last year and Elstones supposed expert?s figure of £220 million.
At the end of the day, everybody has their own opinion and I have always been clear on mine.
NO TO KIRKBY
(PS I am not a member of KEIOC.)
10 Posted 15/03/2009 at 17:02:47
Forget Kirkby for the moment ? it may or may not happen and that is out of our hands right now. I want to be convinced that there is an alternative and KEIOC have set out their stall saying that they can provide one. So can someone support this funding model they have set out?
11 Posted 15/03/2009 at 19:31:59
I gave a very simple and relevant example of one such model..... i.e. The Kings Dock one...... Where a relatively small site compared to Destination Kirkby yielded 90% of the stadium costs. This was because multi-storey downtown developments can achieve this far more efficiently than single storey out of town developments. Meanwhile, Kirkby?s stadium construction costs are shown as £100m on Barr?s site. The Northwest development grant is probably £10m+, yet we are still expected to find at least £78m. Therefore the enabling cross-funding that was supposed to pay for most of this stadium as realised approx £12m. i.e. the cost of half of one stand! Is that really worth the effort? Is it really the deal of the century?
It should also be remembered that KEIOC put together 2 concepts on that video. Both of which in parts were far more ambitious schemes than the basic DK design since they believe that Everton FC merits such, and with respect to the Loop option the actual site merits a higher level design given the prestige and broader multiple-use possibilities at a more central site.
Suffice to say that, if Everton were to employ Barr to build their more basic design on say the Loop, it would cost roughly the same as it does in Kirkby. The infrastructural issues being minor compared to full project costing of a stadium. Alternatively, If they were employed to do similar at Goodison to say replace one or 2 stands, again the costs would be similar per seat....... not all of a sudden several times more.
12 Posted 15/03/2009 at 23:10:57
Kings Dock... though a wonderful site to behold, would have been an absolute transport nightmare. (It can?t handle the 10k capacity now!)
We don?t have any money of our own, but it?s obvious that we are being allowed to borrow against the future asset that will be the Kirkby Stadium due to the fact we?re only paying a third of its worth. We know we have nothing to borrow against at Goodison Park and no sugar daddy in sight... and by the way, what makes everyone think that the design of a rebuilt stadium, even on an enlarged GP footprint, would be any different from the design proposed for Kirkby? Please remember, we?re getting a stadium worth £200M at Kirkby and best estimates for GP are around £200M... unless we can raise twice as much, surely we?re stuck with a mid -range design.
13 Posted 16/03/2009 at 00:29:32
14 Posted 16/03/2009 at 08:10:50
15 Posted 16/03/2009 at 14:06:07
You talk as if obstructed views aren’t a problem. I’m fortunate to sit (for home league games) in the Lower Bullens in a decent seat, so GP most of the time for me is fine. But for the cup games against the shite and Villa I got moved because my seat was taken by an away fan. The alternative was terrible. I felt sorry for people that have to sit there for league games. Both times my ticket was not an obstructed view. Well I beg to differ as there was a massive post in the way of part of the penalty area and a couple of posts in the way of further up the field! The views in many areas of GP are truly awful. When we are paying a lot of money, this is not good enough. Do people honestly believe we can continue in GP with so many shite views??? No wonder we never sell out. Someone said on another thread recently that there are 20 000 odd obstructed views (being completely honest).
I love the place, have a lot of good memories, but we need to move somewhere.
16 Posted 16/03/2009 at 13:01:28
With all respect mate there is nothing accurate in your post!
"The footprint and sight lines of Goodison Park are nigh as well the same as 80 years ago... we?ve asked the council for help in getting a larger footprint and no help has been forthcoming."
80 years ago, Goodison had over 60k standing spaces and only 10,000 seats, the upper Gwladys didn’t even exist let alone the mainstand and park end. The council planning department responsible for both grounds are receptive to footprint expansion and have stated such on several occasions..... the club have not approached them!
"Kings Dock... though a wonderful site to behold, would have been an absolute transport nightmare. (It can?t handle the 10k capacity now!)"
The city centre has a transport capacity of over 200,000 per hr. Every rush hr sees over 100,000 per hr get in and out of town. The initial problems at the arena were because of the big dig. There is none now.
"We don?t have any money of our own, but it?s obvious that we are being allowed to borrow against the future asset that will be the Kirkby Stadium due to the fact we?re only paying a third of its worth. We know we have nothing to borrow against at Goodison Park ."
The cost of the Kirkby stadium is £100m.... we are expected to pay for at least 78% of that, not 1/3rd.
17 Posted 16/03/2009 at 14:23:52
Obstructed views are a problem, however, that doesn’t mean the vast majority or indeed all cannot be eradicated at the current site. Dependent on the type and level of redevelopment and how this is achieved, any remaining obstructed views would have only nominal value say £10, (sale on the day or when all others sold).... and I guarantee the queue for the cheap seats will be around the corner because there are far more people in this city priced out of footy these days than there are trying to get exec seats! Re-roofing alone will reduce obstructed views massively. New stands, and/or reprofiling could get rid of ALL obstructions!
The flip side of course is that people forget that those columns supporting the upper tiers have afforded thousands of Evertonians some of the best views of a football pitch in the country. People who will be displaced from the Top Balcony to upper tiers at Kirkby will be moving upto a massive 24 metres further away from the pitch for the same elevation, upto similar for those in the upper Bullens and upper Gwladys street. They will have shallower viewing angles and greater viewing distances all around! The intensity of a bearpit Goodison that both Charlton brothers and various managers have described over the years would be lost forever in the vast open nothingness. Gone will be the days where those in the upper/lower Bullens can see the expression on the players faces!
18 Posted 16/03/2009 at 17:56:44
LCC, the Combined Authority ’Objectors’ and even Grosvenor ALL agreed after being pinned down by the wonderful TEV QC’s that Liverpool One/Liverpool City Centre would NOT be affected to any great extent by DK - another major plank of the opposition argument defeated, the inspector therefore CANNOT report that LIverpool One or Liverpool City Centre will be adversely affected to any major degree - oops! That leaves dear old Skems long hyped but little advanced ’dead in the water’ residential based scheme as the only real ’opposition’ - oops!
Icing on the cake was Skempton telling the inquiry that even if a decent stadium (not cheap and nasty of course!) with a decent capacity could squeeze in on the loop site (and its surrounding land of course) then you’re talking £230m+ - even then with a hopeless funding ’plan’....oops!....but but but I thought far less expensive Kirkby was too demanding on the ol’ Goodison Wallet.
The only day during the inquiry that was comedy gold, shambolic and ruthlessly cut short by the inspector ’just happened’ to be the day KEIOC was giving its evidence. ;)
19 Posted 16/03/2009 at 18:24:31
Then, when someone from KEIOC or an (anti-DK) professional architect backs up their arguments with facts and at least tries to justify their POV, they are shot down and their numbers are discredited.
Why aren't we this pedantic with EFC? i.e. BK, Elstone and the rest of the DK gang who seem totally disinterested in backing up thier mastperplan with any remotely detailed figures.
20 Posted 16/03/2009 at 18:55:37
If someone could work out the cost per seat to EFC, based on all the info we have, it would simplfy it for everyone.
Goodison - £ per seat during stages of rebuild to EFC.
Kirkby - £ per seat for a mid level stadium to EFC.
Loop - £ per seat for a mid level stadium to EFC.( Plus high spec ?)
Is that possible ? Just a thought.
21 Posted 16/03/2009 at 19:37:33
What makes you think it costs more to build on the Loop than in Kirkby......? It may come as a revelation to some but, a £100m stadium construction cost is the same in either location. The average cost per seat for Barr?s design is £2k.... (probably £1k lower tier, £3K upper tier) this is in line with many similar stands they have built elsewhere. As far as redevelopment of Goodison is concerned.... it very much depends on the type of redevelopment.
If for instance you were to just knock down stands and replace with Barr?s structures it would cost exactly the same plus demolition and land acquisition, which LCC planning office is more than receptive to as stated numerous times. Demolition costs are small, and land costs too. The houses around Goodison and Anfield are the cheapest outside all footy grounds in UK. There are just 25 houses facing the St End, and 3 on the Bullens side. Buying all these at full value would probably be less than £2.5m.
Expanding on The Bullens side and Park end alone would mean only a handful of houses and even less outlay..... not to mention the houses already owned by the club.
Another example would be: To add a new 20 row tier behind the Upper Bullens which would cost approx £2-4k per seat (6,000 new seats) and would increase all concourse areas by over 500% on this side. Then to add 40 rows (6,000) to the rear of the Park end would cost £2-4k per seat. To add corner section between Bullens and Park end £2-4k per seat, 2,500 seats. My reference is Stadia (A design and development guide by Geraint John, Rod Sheard and Ben Vickery).
To be honest several people have posted these figures before!! Re roofing Mainstand £3-5m, re-roofing Gwladys Street with sky boxes £3-5m. Of course the beauty of redevelopment is that it allows the build to be carried out gradually, measuring demand as you go. The other thing of course is the infrastructure is tried and tested to the tune of over 100 years, with public transport and general traffic capacity several times that proposed at Kirkby.
Total cost £35- 65m depending on various factors. On top of that an enabling Hotel/conference/exhibition/residential development could part fund the Park end?s extension as it will be built onto be integral to that development.
22 Posted 16/03/2009 at 20:42:40
Why do you only tell lies?
All your factoids fell out of your rectoid I?m afraid..... hence the reason why you and the rest of your many pseudonyms have been chased off every forum.
23 Posted 16/03/2009 at 23:38:15
The Board seem to have leapt into bed with Tesco, only to find they haven?t got as attractive a deal as they first thought ? nonetheless, it?s their job to sort it out.
However, I suspect that the current board are incapable of delivering such an ambitious project & so there may well be no new stadium in Kirkby, at Goodison Park or anywhere else until we have a change in the control of the club at board level.
24 Posted 17/03/2009 at 09:33:13
KEIOC have helped to show why Kirkby would be a disaster. They have highlighted that other options may be available but are not in a position to put forward a tight financial proposition. What I can’t understand is this crap argument from a lot of the pro-Kirkby supporters that there’s no other viable option. Where did you watch the game on Saturday? It’s just I thought we already occupied a stadium?
25 Posted 17/03/2009 at 10:36:01
You’re spot on!
Everton don’t just occupy a stadium, they boast one of the most famous football grounds in the world..... the world’s first purpose built footy stadium...... the home of so many firsts and great achievements. It currently has some of the worst AND some of the best views of any ground in the country.......(but the club wont tell you about them) but these issues CAN be resolved. Dennis, is also right when he says that we have tied ourselves into a deal that is nothing like as lucrative as originally made out. We are tied into this because our chairman is subservient to those who have helped put him there and have supported him ever since...... these are ALL retail men who want their shops in a place that cannot possibly have them without us....... Therefore, how the club is expected to pay anything at all considering WE ARE THEIR ENABLER (not the other way around) is beyond me.
26 Posted 17/03/2009 at 10:57:43
27 Posted 17/03/2009 at 11:56:33
These are concepts only, and as such far from the accurate costing stage. It?s a starting point because so many people haven?t seen ANY options. When did you last go to vote without options?
There are a multitude of variables to consider before that costing can be delivered. They are also far more ambitious in scope than the Kirkby model, as it is felt that the club and the sites in question are worthy of that. As far as I am aware the only people who have ?invented? money are those who stated that this would be funded by the retail, and we could have a final bill in the order of just £10m. None of them are saying this now, and in fact the complete opposite is true, the retail MIGHT realise £10m if it gets full planning permission!
So much for Tesco?s massive wealth that was going to save the day!? The funding of out of town and downtown stadia can be completely different....... hence the reason why the Kings Dock stadium was on a far higher level yet was almost completely self-funding, even on a much smaller site.
I see another major development is about to start in the city centre over £160m worth. £Billions have now been spent in and around the city-centre, and that?s where this club should be looking if it is to move! The Loop site is prime, between several major flagship developments..... if not right now then when the gloom lifts!
28 Posted 17/03/2009 at 12:48:39
29 Posted 17/03/2009 at 13:16:47
The problem for me with a move to Kirkby is that from what I understand the ground cannot be extended beyond 55-60k total capacity because of the area that it is being built in & because of the transport links to Kirkby; the area would not be able to handle the congestion, increased traffic etc (that?s if it can handle it in the first place).
So why is a football club ? that supposedly wants to ?compete? once again with the Sky 4 and moving stadiums to mix-it with the Sky 4 ? moving to a stadium that:
A) Is already way behind the stadiums that Manchester United & Arsenal currently have & would be lacking behind the stadium that Liverpool are wanting to build on Stanley Park (if they ever do) in terms of structure, total capacity, corporate facilities, income generated, surrounding area, design, potential capacity & transport links?
B) Say the new stadium does bring with it the desired success ? what happens in 20-30 years time when the Kirkby stadium is either dated (let's face it, it's not top of the range now so god knows what it will be like in 20 years or so) or the club wish to extend the capacity, add corporate facilities to stay at the top? Will the club once again have to move stadiums? Where will the next move be ? Ormskirk? (It has an L postcode.) You never know if the club attracts the many fans from the supposed new areas it will reach from its Kirkby location.
Also, what possible benefits (in a business sense) can there be from moving away from a thriving and developing city in Liverpool? What happens to the clubs fan base, heritage & history if the club do move from Liverpool?
What will happen to the club? With the potential transport problems & possible increased cost of journeys to/from the games for local fans, what in pact will this have on the clubs core support? (That?s before you take in to account the ones who state they won?t go to Kirkby & any possible ticket cost rise.)
What happens to the Liverpool Rivalry? What happens to the Merseyside Derby?
From an outsiders point of view it seems that Kirkby is more of a quick fix than solution to the problem... With the move being delayed to at least 2012, surely it?s worth keeping all options open ? there?ve been many problems with the proposed Liverpool move but you don?t see them making any rash decisions, rushing through any fan-splitting controversial options. Anfield too is in need of redevelopment; a once classic stadium that is now dated and tired, it too has obstructed views and wooden seats; but like Goodison it is still a classic stadium on its day and it is not going to fall down tomorrow.
Everton should be patient, ok there aren?t many options available now, but new ones will arise and when they do the club won?t need a vote to know it?s the right choice.
30 Posted 17/03/2009 at 13:21:06
KEIOC needs to be better than this. They and/or their supporters are circulating a video that was long on emotional pull and short on ?where the money comes from?.
The document I read that laid out specific funding alternatives and looks like it was presented to the inquiry was entitled ?proof of evidence of KEIOC proposal? (link at the top of this thread). That to me sounds like it was trying to present facts, or at least sound principles. When I scraped below the surface of what was presented I found the ideas to be at best hopeful.
This is either naive or a deception ? something the board and in particular its chairman are often accused of ? and I for one am disappointed that the document does not bear closer inspection.
The PR & official documents of both sides is no doubt filled with guesses and estimates that support their own side of the story, but lets not pretend that one side is telling porkies when in fact both are.
31 Posted 17/03/2009 at 14:12:08
Do you know where the money’s coming from for Kirkby? What can this achieve at Goodison? Why weren’t there glossey pictures of a £40-80m redevelopment of Goodison in the ballot papers? Why weren’t there pics of what could be done on the Loop by Barr or HOK? If you were responsible for looking at ALL the options wouldn’t you have all these and many more at hand?
Tell me one lie KEIOC have told.
How do you think it (if you can find one) compares to:
A stadium promised to cost us practically nothing, now costing the club a minimum of £78m, and more if the retail doesn’t get full consent.
Most accessible stadium in the country....... yet having only a fraction of the public transport capacity of the current one....... and now even threatened with stadium capacity reductions if public transport use isn’t achieved in a place that hasn’t got any. (Crush loading on trains)
The proposed Park and ride scheme reduced to park and walk (upto 45 mins) because the required buses do not exist.
State of the art staium...... mid-level at best!
I could go on........
I find it quite laughable to use the word "lie" in defence of a pro-Kirkby stance to be honest! Check out the ballot literature before trying to deride those who saw right through it!
32 Posted 17/03/2009 at 18:23:48
Again, a big thank you, for all your hard work. The city of Liverpool is growing again and its first club should be growing with it.
33 Posted 17/03/2009 at 18:27:09
10 out of 10 for tenacity mate, I couldn?t keep it up with some of the people on here, the words dead, horse and flogging spring to mind.
Some of the comments are truly mind numbing, a hotel funding a securitization, 200 beds generating £5M, £220M debt, we should get behind the Board, supporting evidence of funding models and then the inevitable comment from the resident idiot... honestly, Tom you really do have the patience of a saint, Saint Tom of Maersk!
The reality of all this is simple; it?s not KEIOC?s remit to do the job of highly paid executives or advisors. Before the inquiry the planning inspector made it clear that unsubstantiated evidence would carry no weight; Everton proceeded to refuse to reveal the substance behind their evidence, presented at the inquiry, and refused to reveal the details of their exclusivity deal with Tesco. In addition to this, their evidence was cross-examined and found to be wanting.
To be fair to Everton they, were better than Tesco and KMBC, the person who involved Everton in this fiasco should hang their head in shame. I?m glad to see they?ll never darken the doorway of Goodison Park or wherever we end up ever again.
On the other hand, despite the protestations of the applicants, who failed in their embarrassing last minute and desperate attempt to have KEIOC?s evidence excluded on the basis that it was irrelevant to planning matters, I?d suggest everyone reads KEIOC?s closing summation before commenting. KEIOC presented two alternatives and a substantiated funding proposal which simply replaced Tesco?s value-based ? that is, not actual money ? funding element with a proven financial product used in stadium financing that would provide actual hard cash towards building a Premier League grade facility that would actually enable Everton to compete at the top table.
Tesco, Everton and KMBC all refused to cross-examine KEIOC?s proposal; so ? on that basis and that basis alone ? the planning inspector?s job was made that much more easy. The icing on the cake came in the recent admission by Robert Elstone on Radio Merseyside when he stated that the Stadium naming rights deal was stalled and they were looking into securitizing the corporate income! Hang on, isn?t that????lol
As for the resident idiot, there?s about to be a massive blow landed that will wipe that smugness from your armchair campaign of misinformation.
Tom, you missed a good night after the game, you should have headed into town.
34 Posted 17/03/2009 at 21:12:51
I too would like to add my personal thanks for your efforts in bringing FACTUAL information in this ridiculous farce for our football club being brought about by "Friends of Bill Kenwright Limited" with no interest in the future of EFC.
For those who don't question Kirkby?s location and design please look at the following link:
35 Posted 18/03/2009 at 00:28:13
I did go into town! Haven’t got the stamina of my youth..... and drowned half way up Dale St!
Jay, Keep the faith, and our day will come!
Anyone remember the days of the King’s Dock and the way it had its own website and forum with lots of posters supporting it....... ?Weird the way Kirkby hasn’t got a carrot! wonder why!