FAN ARTICLES
The cost of a Shared Stadium
Comments (11) : Robert Elstone said that a joint stadium would cost £200m each and Everton would fail to find the additional £122m needed. At the start of Destination Kirkby, Evertonians were told that Everton didn't have to pay a penny, which turned out to be false, then it rose to £50m and now £78m. The cost of the project is £150m estimated and Tesco are only prepared to pay £52m; so that again leaves Everton paying £98m not £0!
Everton have failed to recognise/admit that a join stadium venture would be eligible to funding by Sports & Culture board (should England win the 2018 World Cup bid) funding from North West Development Agency and Liverpool City Council. Arsenal's Emirates stadium received a £100m naming rights deal, £15m catering contract and revenue from redevelopment of Highbury. If Everton got all the funding required and split the remaining costs, a joint stadium would be cheaper than Destination Kirkby.
Viable stadiums (from 2003) that are cheaper than Everton's Destination Kirkby and better value for money include the 3 Main Portugal Euro 2004 Stadia, Borussia Park, City of Manchester Stadium, Stadionul National (New Romania National Stadium), and the Swedbank Arena Solna (New Sweden National Stadium).
A stadium I am particularly impressed with is the new Swedish National Stadium of capacity 70,000 and cost £170million (must be a flat-pack stadium!)
Reader 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
Construction costs in the UK have fallen recently, as has the cost of steel compared to just a few years ago..... I wonder if the club are still boasting that they got a fixed cost contract, because if they did they have lost out bigtime. As far as construction costs being greater in the UK, not sure this is the case in comparison to Germany or Scandinavia, who both have far higher labour costs generally.
Also James, Destination Kirkby is a £100m stadium, not the oft quoted £150m. Check out Barr?s website for the construction costs etc. The additional value is a dreamt-up figure to attempt to offset the ridiculously ineffectual enabling scheme, as was highlighted at the inquiry when none of the club?s ?experts? could identify where it came from. Tesco have confirmed several times that they are not contributing anything towards the stadium... cross funding via retail enabling was supposed to cover the stadium costs but will in fact contribute the smallest slice of the imaginary financing pie (just £10-12m).
Of course the club never told us this at the time of the vote since they knew Evertonians would have asked why £40-£80m couldn?t be spent on redeveloping Goodison at our leisure, or put towards the likes of the Loop where substantially greater enabling was possible as proven by the Kings Dock proposals. Smoke and mirrors and no substance from start to finish.
Arsenal have regular CL qualification. In recent years, I feel Moyes and not O'Neill to be the man to challenge Wenger with his own brand of astute buying and pip Arsenal to 4th or higher. I think we frightened Liverpool (2004) into spending more to qualify for CL football with Moyes our club will continue to move forward. The stadium will come when it's needed when it's impossible to get a seat at Goodison. Let's learn to crawl before we walk...
Punctuation added, no charge ? The Editor
What isn?t being admitted to by the club is that it is probable that a grant would be forthcoming, however ? that might just make Kirkby appear a poor solution.
Frankly, despite all the "we are broke" brigade banging on, somehow we will or have found the probably £100m to make Kirkby work, but as Tom said, they could have made other decisions but they won?t. They never had any intention to consider anything else so why would Elstone give a complete and full appraisal of any scheme?
He knows as we all do that Kirkby is the only option the board ever wanted and no matter how good a case for any alternative is made, the only way that EFC will not go to Kirkby is if the inquiry goes against it.
Although I have been quite impressed with Elstone so far, he still has ?a whiff of Wyness? about him by continuing to insist Kirkby is the ?only option? when clearly it isn?t.
I?d like to think he is saying that publicly because he has to say it to keep in with Tesco and not violate this ?exclusivity agreement? which I am sure we were originally told was only to last for 6 months! The Exclusivity Agreement is preventing any other ideas from seeing the light of day.
I am opposed to Kirkby for all sorts of reasons, all detailed in the past, and with the above in mind I am keeping my fingers crossed the scheme gets thrown out ? for the long term good of Everton Football Club, rather than a minimal potential short term gain and a big win for Tesco.
On Bluekipper there?s news from an anti-DK shareholder that Tesco have ordered the steel for the new stadium, that's on top of all the trees recently been felled at the stadium site, and thats on top of the GONW giving KMBC permission to Tesco to divert the brook. We?re going to Kirkby and it's now time for people to get on with their lives.
I?m a shareholder, but not sure what relevance that has to knowing the outcome of the public inquiry. I also know people who work for the contractors, Barrs, and they have been stood down for months, so you can read whatever you like into that.
I agree, Evertonians are DK punch drunk, and the cup has been a healthy distraction, but rest assured the KEIOC stance is even more valid now than it ever was. None of the club?s pre-vote DK promises have come to fruition or anything close.
The public inquiry only served to highlight the glaring defficiencies of an ill-conceived collaboration as far as any discerning Evertonian should be concerned. Mediocre stadium in a disastrous location does not a good future make ? regardless of whether they can convince someone to invest.
Elstone: "..Well can we say the finances are in place for Kirkby?"
BK: "Er... no coz they?re not."
Elstone: "Can we say we can definitely deliver it?"
BK: "Er... no."
SFX: Ring-ring.... ring-ring.
Elstone (picks up phone): "Hello Robert Elstone, Everton FC"
Reporter (loud, narky): "Hi, J. Jonah Jameson, Editor of the Liverpool Bugle, what the hell is the present financial situation re Kirkby?"
Elstone: ?Kirkby?s costing and funding strategies are not set in stone but they are sufficiently solid to give the club confidence that it can deliver it"
Reporter: "Sounds good to me! Bye"
BK: "Bob, you?re a genius!... And so much more approachable than fat Keith!"
Top of the Page
Change Mobile Preferences
1 Posted 23/05/2009 at 15:34:02
Report abuse
How is that an accurate comparison? Really, please explain. Before I say whether I agree with your argument I would like to understand exactly what it is.
Add to that the fact that you seem to have set the limit of what is deemed "value for money" just below the figure that Kirkby falls at (2,976.13 = Kirkby not value for money, yet 2,818.18 = Kings Dock is value for money)
It is notoriously expensive to build in the UK compared to Europe, so again your argument about cost is flawed. Construction costs will be far higher now than in 2003 so again difficult to compare in the way you have done.
All in all your "logic" seems to have more holes than a sieve. Maybe I just don’t get it.