Re: Everton ground moveI have left out my mobile and email address here for obvious reasons. I wonder wether anybody else thinks he swerved the question in typical political fashion. By the way I'm also a season holder of 30 years plus and whilst serving in the forces have travelled thousands of miles to see my club.
From: Bradley, Warren (Leader of the City Council) Sent: 04 July 2008 16:54:23
I don't know where you reside, but must say you are in a minority with the views you have.
As a Council we will always act in the best interests of our residents.
Can I also ask you to recall the work undertaken by the Council for the Kings Dock stadium, only for EFC to scupper them!
Regards, an EFC season ticket holder for 30+ years.
Leader of Liverpool City Council
----- Original Message -----
From: martin handley
To: Bradley, Warren (Leader of the City Council)
Sent: Fri Jul 04 17:40:32 2008
Subject: Everton ground move
Hello Councillor Bradley,
Firstly before I go on may I just state that other than being a season ticket holder I hold no financial stake in Everton FC whatsoever.
Now to my main point, may I be so bold as to ask what your and LCC's problem is with Everton relocating to Kirkby when you have basically erased all mention of my beloved team from all council pamphlets and that most tv programmes referring to the city of Liverpool barely give Everton a second thought.
Most 08 publicity omits us from a mention totally yet the club bearing the city's name, which by the way has brought more negative publicity to this city in the past 25 years than Everton has in over 125 are at the forefront at every opportunity. There were massive objections about their new ground being built yet you rode roughshod over local opinion and granted planning permission anyway when in reality it should have called before the government.
Also why was it when Everton enquired about building on Stanley Park they were told outright that parkland was greenbelt and could not be built on.
May I also state that I believe the council do not actually own the parks of Liverpool but hold them in trust and upkeep them under an old covenant from Lord Derby, the park land must be available for free and easy use for ALL the people not just a section, so how can allowing LFC to build on it which immediately alienates/precludes 50% of the population and also which charges a fee for entrance be in keeping with the covenant?
The proposed "alternative" sites on offer were just a token gesture and basically when looked at in the cold light of day were laughable!
Why don't you spend more time addressing the real issues of this great city than achieving a cheap bit of publicity on the back of this area's oldest and proudest club? We ARE the PEOPLE'S club let us survive and thrive not stagnate and die. After all the fiascos you have been involved in you are already less popular than Hitler in the town don't make it any worse.
I am not a coward and will leave you my mobile phone no if you care to reply or you can reply by email. As I say I don't expect a response but maybe you'll prove me wrong.
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 04/07/2008 at 23:49:42
From the council?s perspective, they were royally messed about by Kenwright and his shenanigans over Kings Dock. Obviously it still wrankles.
2 Posted 05/07/2008 at 02:00:34
The Kings Dock was offered to Liverpool Football Club first, that means before it was offered to Everton Football Club as an afterthought. EFC did not have any money at all at the time and no means of raising finance for it. The LCC could have sanctioned building the ground for EFC then leased it to them.. It was tokenism towards EFC at its worst. They did not want Everton on the waterfront, they only wanted Liverpool FC.
As for Stanley Park, Everton FC had enquired about using it for a football ground and were told not to waste their time with an official application as LCC would not break the covenant covering the parks usage. The planning committee had known for years that Liverpool FC wanted the site and wanted it kept clear for them. LCC want nothing to do with Everton FC, just look at the 08 marketing/advertising and try and find anything to do with Everton FC.
The villains of the peace are Liverpool City Council, not the current custodians of our club. Knowsley Council will be the salvation of EFC, Liverpool CC want to keep control over EFC and strangle the life out of it.
3 Posted 05/07/2008 at 03:43:09
----- Original Message -----
From: martin handley
To: Bradley, Warren (Leader of the City Council)
Sent: Fri Jul 04 17:40:32 2008
Subject: Everton ground move
Hello Councillor Bradley,
Firstly before I go on may I just state that other than being a season ticket holder I hold no financial stake in Everton FC whatsoever.
His response is:
Re: Everton ground move
From: Bradley, Warren (Leader of the City Council) Sent: 04 July 2008 16:54:23
I don’t know where you reside, but must say you are in a minority with the views you have.
Normally I do not nitpick postings but I do so now.
As a season ticket holder I presume you reside within the UK, otherwise why would you pay for a season ticket. Unless of course you are an expat and buy the ticket for a family member who still resides in the UK.
I receive many emails from outside of where I currently live, the US. They are timed when I read them, not when they are sent. My sister emails me at 1400 BST, I read it at 1100 CST in the US. She sent it at 1000CST, I read it at 1100 CST. One hour later but she still sent it at 1400BST.
You sent your original email at 17:40 on July 4, 2008. Mr Bradley responded at 16:54 July 4, 2008. Did he respond before you actually asked the quesion?
4 Posted 05/07/2008 at 07:57:11
IF it all goes ahead, then I hope you are right, coz if not we will be in such deep shit, the like of which the Leeds meltdown will seem like a minor setback.
5 Posted 05/07/2008 at 08:37:53
In a history full of missed opprtunities and clumsy overreactions, this machete proposal has done more to split Evertonia than anything else. More power to Bradley?s and Anderson?s elbows.
6 Posted 05/07/2008 at 09:25:03
7 Posted 05/07/2008 at 09:43:51
I hate the thought of leaving the city but get the impression that, without a pot to piss in, the present Board would take us anywhere if someone else came up with money.
For god?s sake save your ire for Blue Bill and his buddies ? not visit on other Evertonians like Councillor Bradley!
8 Posted 05/07/2008 at 09:54:55
9 Posted 05/07/2008 at 09:52:32
The Kings Dock proposal came out of a competitive bid for development of the site. The City Council / Liverpool Vision organised the competitive bidding process and chose Everton [?Houston Securities?] as their ?development partner? over several other alternatives [which had no stadium], following a process of public consultation. After a lot of further work, the City council were left in the lurch when Everton withdrew. With 2008 looming, the City decided to develop the Arena and Conference Centre on its own. Everton lost the deal of a lifetime. Liverpool FC were never involved in any way, apart from complaining that Everton were being given preferential treatment. This led to the decision to let LFC develop in Stanley Park, a move which was opposed by Warren Bradley.
10 Posted 05/07/2008 at 09:54:40
As for where I live I was born and bred in Walton under half a mile from Goodison. I have also been a season ticket holder for 30 years plus even travelling thousands of miles back home to watch the boys whilst serving in the armed forces.
As for being offensive I have tried to arrange a meeting with him to find out why he has left it till now to object but yet again he has swerved it.
He gets paid more than Gordon Brown FFS ? as you would say!!!
11 Posted 05/07/2008 at 10:11:22
e.g Stanley Park greenbelt ? lol!!!! It?s a PARK not a great tract of green fields.
I get the idea, but so sorry, it was badly put across.
I still voted NO though.
12 Posted 05/07/2008 at 10:27:58
As for innaccuracies, politically and as a public representative the man is a joke !!
Please read the e.mail properly.
13 Posted 05/07/2008 at 10:26:16
1. Firstly Jip.. I'm glad you only posted a few lines because it was filled with total inaccuarcies... Definition of greenbelt.."Any stretch of park, open space or other natural setting in a community." Now Jip maybe my English is not as good as yours but that SEEMS to indicate Stanley Park is indeed greenbelt. You also probably are unaware of the history of the Park so I will not address your reply any further.
2. Some want to give Warren Bradley a break cos he's an Evertonian. Did you see the sites this man proposed... why wasn't the Lancs sites adjacent to the M57 offered to Everton? Scotland Road, Stopgate Lane... Evertonian? Sorry... must do better.
3. Why didnt they try harder to keep Everton at Goodison by looking at the footprint around the ground ?
4. Martin is in a minority ??.. Firstly, the guy sounds like a passionate Evertonian who wants the best for his club.... what's wrong with that ????.....So the majority of Evertonians think the council has done its upmost to keep Everton in the City ? as much as they have Liverpool ????.... I'm laughing so hard I fear my head may fall off.
5. I will sign off now cos I will leave the Warren Bradley Fan Club to fall over themselves to support THEIR MAN ! ...
I, like Martin, will go on supporting Everton home and away this season like the fans we have been for all of our lives living less than a half-mile away from the ground and who won't be adverse to travelling to the North Pole of Kirkby to see my team. Unless of course Liverpool Council do the right thing and put Everton's needs in the city on the same par as Liverpool FC.
14 Posted 05/07/2008 at 11:15:38
15 Posted 05/07/2008 at 11:24:01
Some people just cant accept the true facts that the council bent over backwards for EFC at the Kings Dock ? even going into partnership with EFC and spending lots of taxpayers money. The blame lies squarely with Mr Kenwright who lied about finances and reneged on assurances.
16 Posted 05/07/2008 at 11:29:58
Politician behaves like politician. Shock. Horror.
Clearly he will have the support of the anti-Kirkby people. Nothing too surprising there, is there?
Surely your real frustrtion is that the opposition won?t see your version of common sense and keep quiet. Too bad, I?m afraid.
And, by the way, your Hitler reference not only weakened an already fatally weak argument re Kirkby, but also raises questions about your grasp of reality more widely.
17 Posted 05/07/2008 at 11:34:21
Also Phil, LCC have tried to get together with the club, but the club have hid behind the exclusitivity agreement put in place by Tesco, as the reason not to talk to them. One more thing Phil, it is NOT about the extra miles people will have to travel to Kirkby, it is about it being the wrong LOCATION for our club.
18 Posted 05/07/2008 at 11:55:09
1. Everton have approached the council before the exclusitivity agreement about the footprint of the existing ground and other possible sites.
2. Kirby was I believe in Liverpol prior to boundary changes and I'm sure those peope who live there don't see themselves OUTSIDE Liverpool.
As I say once again I am not bothered with the extra miles to see my club in a new Stadium. If you want to see Everton stay at Goodison 'til the safety closes it then that is SHORT-SIGHTED of you. If you have the money to build a Stadium in Liverpool then I will gladly stay in the city. If however you have no concrete proposal to build such a stadium in Liverpool then DO NOT come on here spouting rubbish about wrong locations. We need a new stadium FULL STOP! If you have the money then fine but I don't believe you do have so lets stay in the real world Brian... MATE... and let's build at Kirkby...
19 Posted 05/07/2008 at 12:07:46
We were told all along by the club that developing Goodison couldn?t be done. Now Ian Ross says it is plan B, and can be done. So was that another lie added to the glossy brochure just to get the majority vote needed? See what I'm getting at? The club have lied to get what they want.
And where does all this, "Goodison could get shut through safety" come from? Ah, I remember... the club told us so! So do you believe everything the club tell you?
I think you will also find, that Bradley has said he would sit down with BK and KW and look at the existing footprint of Goodison, with the view to extending it. But, suprise, suprise, the club didn?t take up his offer. At the end of the day, Phil, we are both fellow Evertonians, but have different views on the whole sorry mess.
20 Posted 05/07/2008 at 12:25:20
21 Posted 05/07/2008 at 12:32:55
I have said all the time LCC is where the protest should have been directed but as normal hotheads take the movement the wrong way. LCC are the party that could have stopped the whole move, they haven't so EFC had to follow the line where people wanted them. If you reading this, Bradley you're a fraud!!! Why didn't you call in SP?????
22 Posted 05/07/2008 at 12:37:38
?So the majority of Evertonians think the council has done its upmost to keep Everton in the City?
Your logic is skewed - the real question is what have Everton done to keep the club in the City, they won?t even talk to the council or anyone else will they?
It appears to be that it is Everton FC themselves who are keenest to eradicate us and our links with the City. They don?t need the help of the media, tossers like Alexi Sayle, and Warren Bradley and Co. They have done it quite nicely themselves.
23 Posted 05/07/2008 at 12:49:01
as I said before, Brian believes more the council and the press instead of stepping back and looking at both sides of the story and making his own mind up like I do. Good point about Bellefield, another council backing for Everton hey Brian??? As for redeveloping Goodison how much would that cost...it seems you had ideas and ideals Brian but no money to back either. A new stadium will have naming rights and increased income Goodison doesn?t. Take off your blinkers and look at both sides like I do....
24 Posted 05/07/2008 at 12:50:54
Well if Bill said nasty things about Bradley it must be true! because BK never tells a porkie does he?
You are fortunate to meet the great messiah and be able to converse with him, perhaps he could grace those Evertonians who live on Merseyside with a similar forum to air our views.
Alan and if he said things about Bradley at al please enlighten me, don?t set yourself up for the libel action. Oh forgot its Everton themselves who indulge in that type of behaviour... C'mon Alan, what did he say exactly? I think you owe it to us lot stuck in the provinces. After all, surely it would support your case for DK or is just case of load of BS. I am not trying to be rude Alan I merely think it is your duty as a Blue to tell us, so please do. I'm waiting!
25 Posted 05/07/2008 at 13:17:30
I agree, Mr Bradley has basically side-stepped every point you have made.
I find his response condescending, arrogant and it speaks volumes about the character of the man.
Everton season ticket holder or not, Mr Bradley and LCC have hardly given a damn about our club and even if they have it has only been secondary to their support of Liverpool FC.
26 Posted 05/07/2008 at 13:57:37
I think an earlier reply from Mr Kenrick looks like he didnt read the postings properly. Mr Bradley didnt answer any of Martins Questions and looked to me like a preprepared statement. I for one would believe Bill more so than a council member because he cares for the club and under his stable leadership has got Everton to a top six club. Lesser chairman might've sacked Moyes when we finished 4th from bottom or scored the lowest number of league goals in a season. I wonder what would happen if we had an owner who stripped the club or carried out its business in the papers, what would these people on here be saying then??? Short memories some people.
So congratualtions Bill for getting us to this position and I for one trust you with my beloved club...
27 Posted 05/07/2008 at 14:25:06
Believe what Bill Kenwright says? ? Are you joking? It is well known that BK tossed the LCC around over KD and pissed a lot of council people off. It is also a FACT that EFC have never applied to build in Stanley Park so how can they be rejected.
It is also a fact that EFC have never enquired about planning permission to extend GP a simple and not very costly excercise. It might also have been prudent to do this at the same time as requesting PP for Bellefield before declaring Destination Kirkby.
It is also a FACT that GP is not about to fall down or be closed down ? see if the same can be said about Kirkby in 25 years let alone 125 years.
BK/KW have hidden behind this exclusivity period for 2 years now because they couldn't be bothered to get off their arses and look into something for themselves.
Now I don't think Bradley has covered himself in glory either but he does not control Everton ? BK does.
28 Posted 05/07/2008 at 14:51:36
A quick search of the web brought this link
I won't even bother to comment on your other facts....
You must not have been into the Lower Bullens recently with some of your views and I wonder if you visit Goodison Park at all or get your view from the Liverpool FC Echo or a "Council Source".
Happy Fact-ing Jay
29 Posted 05/07/2008 at 14:56:03
Can you confirm that Bill Kenwright stated;
1) LCC will make land available to allow the redevelopment of Goodison Park.
2) [When asked if Transport at Kirkby would be sufficient, he said] "I don’t know anything about the transport."
30 Posted 05/07/2008 at 15:13:21
I have supported Everton since 1958 starting in Goodison Road,then Gwladys Street and until this year was a season ticket holder in the Park End. I have stood in Gwladys Street in 65,000 crowds and can tell you it?s a much more uncomfortable feeling than sitting in the Bullens with a slightly restricted view.
The BBC article says what? That BK lied again. Many contributors have come on here and stated that there is nothing on file about EFC enquiring about extending GP or building in Stanley Park and if it was an official enquiry it would have to be there.
Looking at Neil Adderley?s assertion above that BK stated LCC will make the land available seems to put doubt on that one too eh? So which other FACTS do you want to dispute?
31 Posted 05/07/2008 at 15:42:02
you seem to have a complex where everyone who agrees with you is right and those disagreeing with you are wrong.
Point 1: Health and Safety laws don?t pass or fail on whether you're comfortable in your seat or not. As for putting length of service in, I always feel that that cheapens your argument.
Point 2: Without you having any hard facts, you are saying BK has lied again cos you and your mates on here have the same view. I like to raise myself above the general feeling and look at the facts, digest them and come to my own conclusion. I would never call BK or Warren outright liars cos I have never and will never been in possession of all the facts to come to such a conclusion.
As for Neil, fair play to him, he is asking for people WHO WHERE AT THE MEETING to confirm the 2 points. Its always better to get a positive answer rather than listen to a few people on a website.
I hope that has clarified my position.
32 Posted 05/07/2008 at 16:43:22
I was there last night.
"ESCLA - does anyone know what was said last night?"
Bill wasnt given a hard time on anything.
Basically, and I formed my own opinion on Kenwright last night, based soley upon what he told us last night, is that Kenwright is the ringmaster of the circus.
Every question that was asked of him, and I give you a few samples here...
Why are we not represented with a bigger presence in the City? (I bought up the Liverpool store in L1)
BK Answer, only Newcastle fans spend vast amount of sums on merchandising, and out of town Liverpool supporters, if we had a store in the city we would onbly make a couple of £100s a year through that channel, so I dont thunk its worth it. That said Im only the chairman of the club and a fan like you, I dont know anything about merchandising, but I do love the club.
Bill, are you looking to sell.
BK answer, yes, I want to sell, this week I have had calls from Rome, Norway, Dubai and America, but no one wants to buy Everton because of Liverpool in the same city.
Bill, what can you do to make Everton seem like a viable attractive proposition for any prospective purchaser?
BK answer, I dont know. Can you tell me?
Bill, what about the planning and infrastructure needed to move to Kirkby?
BK Answer, hey dont ask me guys, Im just the chairman and a fan like you, thats not a question for your chairman!!
Will Moyes be signing, whats been the delay.
BK answer, no delay, we have a close relationship he calls me 10-15 times a day, we have just been negotiating thats all.
Will Arteta be sold?
Bk answer, no, well I dont think so, why would he go? He loves Everton, new 5 year deal, hes an idol, but football is a strange thing, and nothing suprises me..!!!
I could go on!!
The usual things that get posted on here, about the boys pen, Dave Hickson, Howard etc, all came out last night.
My impression is that he is in serious shit concerning the future of EFC. He did admit it was his heart ruling his head when he bought the clubm which we have to admire him for, and he freely admitted he hasnt the money to take us where we want to go, but I have never in all my life heard any chairman of a multi million pound organisation admit to having no idea about how a company was run, or is ran.
And that for me is frightening!!
Kenwright, a thouroughly nice guy, but to me, in charge of a house made of cards!!!
33 Posted 05/07/2008 at 16:38:03
believe me I do not suffer from any complex except when posters claim that I do not go to games but only read about Everton in the Echo etc.
So I was just putting you straight on that score.
Goodison Park has passed all current health and safety inspections with flying colours and far better qualified people than you or I have posted on here that GP can easily pass any future regulations/inspections too.
FFS have you ever been to Luton or some other tumbledown ground so if they can pass how can anyone possibly suggest GP wont but I guess that "cheapens your argument"
All compulsive and proven liars USUALLY lie to the point of not knowing whether they are ever telling the truth and BK has so many examples of this I won't even bother to start listing them.
He has apparently told a lie in this case too because in the BBC article he claims LCC told him GP could not be extended but at the Q and A session he apparently said he had been told by LCC that GP could be extended so which version are we to believe.
There is no Plan B and then there is a plan. B.
Everything out of GP is smoke and mirrors these days and if you cant see it I can't help but I guess we?ll soon all know one way or the other.
34 Posted 05/07/2008 at 16:59:17
I cant get in on the link you gave us.
Do we need a password or anything?
Or can you copy the post on here.
35 Posted 05/07/2008 at 17:40:03
36 Posted 05/07/2008 at 17:43:12
I am still waiting ! as you say you where at the meeting can you confirm what Kenwright said that can’t be repeated about LCC because it might change my opinion of him in a good way either way I would love to know.
I also think Warren Bradley should have the right of reply. If Martin Handley can wriite to him, then maybe Warren Bradley can have a look at this thread. One of them is lying if its not Kenwriight and what you say is true, you will surely respond by providing us with the knowledge you have of this meeting. I await your response with baited breath.
37 Posted 05/07/2008 at 17:54:44
1. BK should be removed from office
2. Stay at Goodison.
3. Wait for Moyes to leave due to no capital to strength team.
4. Let's all met up in Winslow for a nice get together after the game.
Yep boys, looking at it you got a great plan..... come back LCC all is forgiven.. I give up.....
38 Posted 05/07/2008 at 17:54:17
Sad or what????
39 Posted 05/07/2008 at 18:00:36
40 Posted 05/07/2008 at 18:22:55
if you really believe going to Kirkby will give more funds to the team would you please explain how going into a further 80 million plus debt with corresponding interest payments will generate more income.
Our weakness compared to other clubs is not gate receipts nor corporate events,although I don't see much of that happening in Kirkby........ No, our big weakness is commercial income.
Spurs for example with a maximum capacity of 36,000 get £40 million from commercial income we get £3 million.
We must be the worst marketed company in the prem and for the chairman to come out and say "Only Newcastle fans buy shirts" as his reason for not having a presence in Liverpool makes even more of a mockery of this fool who?s running our club.
41 Posted 05/07/2008 at 18:26:31
42 Posted 05/07/2008 at 18:31:28
I do worry that Wyness is calling all the shots. BB is an innocent abroad!!!
43 Posted 05/07/2008 at 19:43:38
Neil, 1) No, he said they have come out and said it can be expaned but only recently and have never elaborated .
Sorry I have taken so long Ed but been out for the afternoon hope thats ok with you, old chap!
44 Posted 05/07/2008 at 21:40:34
GP may be passing H&S laws at the moment, but I think the club are more worried about being able to maintain this over a period of time.
As for Mr Bradley I lost all respect for him when he did a big spread in the Echo last year during the exclusivity period. He claimed that had anyone "tipped him the wink" that Everton were looking for a new ground he maybe could have done something. This coming from a season ticket holder of 30+ years, FFS every effin Evertonian knew the need for a new ground since the Kings Dock fiasco.
Also please read the link below, in particular the line "Everton will now be working very closely with Liverpool City Council to deliver the first class stadium which Everton supporters want and deserve."
Where did this go tits up? Maybe LCC couldn?t take us serious anymore after Kings Dock. With regards to Stanley Park, I heard a guy talking on Radio City a few weeks ago - he was supposed to have written a book on sports stadiums, he referred to LFC building on Stanley Park as being very iffy because the park was grade 1 public property (or something along those lines), he went on to say all Evertonians should be very suspicious about this deal as he believed we had in fact been declined the site ourselves in the past. This pissed off St John no end. Conspiracy theories anyone?
45 Posted 06/07/2008 at 09:47:20
First of all you claim what BK said about LCC couldn't be repeated. You continue :
"let's just say Bradley is more full of BS thank you think."
When challenged by Ed, you couldnt tell us what he said, but back down completely by saying, "Let's say he made some nice hand gestures." What is he, a fucking mime artist ?
Tell the truth now Alan, promise I won't tell anyone, BK never said anything unrepeatable about LCC did he?
Talk about telling it like it isn't...
46 Posted 06/07/2008 at 09:53:55
Firstly, your final point regarding EFC being declined Stanley Park is an over-used urban myth. Feel free to contact the planning office for applications/formal enquiries relating to that site or any other in the city from EFC, I can even give you the name of the planning officer responsible. They don’t exist! There isn’t even anything relating to expansion of the current footprint...... not one! Therefore the whole assertion that the club has fully explored the option of redevelopment is pure fallacy. LFC asked about the Park, we didn’t! End of! No mystery, no conspiracy!
Who is the most responsible for our future..... LCC or EFC’s board? Who’s running the club? This constant referral to LCC is completely irrelevant to the main issues. We have been sold a pup, and the club has been instrumental in helping perpetuate the lies that have supported this. LCC have played no part in that charade yet people still unable to justify their yes vote are still attempting to deflect their non-argument onto those who weren’t even invited to the party. It’s farcical!
47 Posted 06/07/2008 at 11:13:33
Also it seems to me and IMO many others that to stay in the City, LCC needed to show some responsibility to accomodate us, but haven?t.
48 Posted 06/07/2008 at 11:25:02
49 Posted 06/07/2008 at 11:33:42
The thread is about Warren Bradley being asked a number of questions by a concerened supporter, we are all concerned supporters, but Mr Bradley is a supporter who was in a position to act before it got to the KBC exclusivity stage; he didn?t. He didn?t have to act as a supporter, he needed to act as the head of LCC and didn?t; he didn?t show any of the responsibility you are calling for, and as council leader of a major footballing City he and his council should have shown equal responsibility to both clubs in the City.
Then to make matters worse (as pointed out in my text about his spread in the Echo), he chose to deny knowledge the club were looking for a new home. In the meantime he and his council are handing over so-called public property to LFC regardless of whether or not Everton had enquired about any availability.
Surely a man in his position was aware of our clubs need for a new or redeveloped home??
50 Posted 06/07/2008 at 16:47:44
Regardless of any vote, it?s the board?s and its emloyee?s job to run our club, that?s what they are paid for, not LCC?s nor the fans. It?s been proven inside out that what people voted for doesn?t exist, bit like voting tory only for labour to turn up, except in our case there wasn?t any alternative to vote for in the first place.
Whether or not a caller to a radio phone-in asserts it, it is immaterial since neither the planning records nor indeed the club itself support the argument that EFC where not allowed to build a stadium on Stanley Park. It never happened, pure and simple...... ! There is only one mention in the records of re-aligning Walton Lane at the Park end, and that dates back to Johnson?s time.
As far as Bradley?s responsibility to act in any which way, surely the club?s future direction is primarily the club?s responsibility first and foremost...... no-one else?s?! The club have not asked LCC for ANY assistance regarding planning issues with ANY site, not even the one they currently own! Which kills the myth that they have exhauted all options..... how could they without referral to the planning office? They have backed one direction only, that?s why only one appeared on your ballot sheet. LCC cannot stop anyone from entering an exclusivity deal, they can only react to its consequences and resultant planning violations, which is what has happened.
You also get your chronology all back to front, I think you will find that LFC secured initial planning permission a long time before Tesco appeared and also before Bradley?s tenure, the latest developments and planning applications there are now tied into various funding packages that were secured long ago. Like I said, the whole thing is yet another non-argument to attempt to cover up the gross inadequacies of DK and the whole single-option process to date. These are the real issues!!
51 Posted 06/07/2008 at 21:19:52
You say it is the club's responsibility, well they have acted on that and will be held responsible for whatever happens with DK, good or bad, failure or success. Bradley or moreover LCC have a massive responsibility to the City and the businesses in the City that depend on football. That means keeping Everton in the City if they can. In my opinion, I can see very little evidence of them doing anything about that until the horse had bolted.
You say ?the club have not asked LCC for ANY assistance regarding planning issues with ANY site?... why did it come out in the wash that Everton had considered 18 or 20 sites within the City boundaries ?was this without the knowledge of LCC ? Or is this simply another BK & KW lie? Why take something to a planning stage if it doesn?t tick the boxes in the first place, hence none of these sites were ever considered for planning.
You also say there was no alternative to DK ? well there was, but it was to stay at GP. Anyhow, again I believe LCC should have showed some of this responsibility and offered Everton a viable alternative to DK before the exclusivity period was introduced, unless we believe Warren Bradley when he says he didn?t know we were looking for a new home. This is the same man who claimed to know nothing of the music festival fiasco, claiming he had no knowledge of problems as he was on holiday at the time!!
Michael ? can I propose you set up a vote to see how many TW readers feel LCC (with or without Warren Bradley) have done enough to keep EFC in the City?
52 Posted 07/07/2008 at 07:40:28
Why do you doubt what I say? Do you have that much faith in probably the worst local council in the country over the last 25 years!! Or is it that KEIOC have been the patsy of this shower, and maybe as I have stated many times on this site that good Evertonians who have had a genuine reason not to agree with the re-location have been sold a typical political red herring?
LCC should have been the recipient of all the lobbying and instead you allowed them in to give your little antidotes to buy time when all along it was time that was the most important obstacle. This week thankfully will hopefully bring this whole sorry episode to a conclusion, no matter what is agreed no side should see itself as winner as that would be wrong to the entire fan base.
53 Posted 07/07/2008 at 08:26:23
54 Posted 07/07/2008 at 09:37:13
Sadly it would appear that we are not an investable proposition or according to BB we aren?t. So could anybody please tell me who may take over should the current Board step aside? Or is this just another load of bullshit propagated by BB to ensure that he does leave our club with a pocket full of cash?
55 Posted 07/07/2008 at 10:29:31
56 Posted 07/07/2008 at 09:44:07
Excuse the cut and paste, but you’ve made a lot of points in one post......
"once again you have gone away from the subject of the thread to have your say about DK."
That’s the point I am trying to make. This thread is at best a side issue with no real substance...... while the real issues are glaring, and far more relevant to the process by which we have found ourselves at this point!
"However, this thread is related to Warren Bradley and not DK;"
Yet you are questioning his involvement in attempting to avoid DK? Does that make sense?
"You can ask this question in whatever chronological order you like, before or after Warren Bradley?s tenure began."
But you are addressing Warren Bradley concerning LFC and Stanley park, when he wasn’t involved.
"In my opinion, I can see very little evidence of them doing anything about that until the horse had bolted."
Unfortunately, they cannot make EFC do anything if they are hell bent on moving. Wouldn’t the more pertinent question be to ask the real decision-maker, the club itself: "why are they moving?" Then when they produce ANY official statement saying that LCC have stopped them doing A,B or C within the city, people might see a valid argument. If you do that this the thread vanishes, since they have NEVER approached LCC, and have certainly never been rejected. The reason I know this is because I have asked that question directly.
"You say ?the club have not asked LCC for ANY assistance regarding planning issues with ANY site?... why did it come out in the wash that Everton had considered 18 or 20 sites within the City boundaries ?was this without the knowledge of LCC ?"
You mean the document that has only mysteriously appeared over a year after the exclusivity agreement, that is a carbon copy of LFC’s outline report of various sites that they released years ago, with a few new ones thrown in for good measure (Calderstones???). Have you read this document? It is not a feasibility study but a broad overview (at best) with quite frankly some laughable assertions that could have been produced by any A-level geography student, and has already been covered on threads on here. This was a document that was released by LFC for general public consumption, not some comprehensive study by EFC at all. LCC’s planning office have all the data required to support any application/site study, such as surveys/plans/transport-studies etc, it is simply not possible to make any meaningful decisions based on a few one liners in the document you mention. Then there’s the redevelopment of GP. The clubs own feasibility study was not done till months after the vote, over a year after exclusivity, and even then it was conducted by Tesco’s people. How can this ever be indicative of a club exhausting the options pre-exclusivity, it comes after the event and is biased. This all indicates that the club were offered one option which was sold to us/them as a freeby, and they have grabbed it with no thought for anything else. The rest are token gestures to represent some semblance of normal procedure when there is none. Bill Kenwrights recent responses to questions at ESCLA’s agm illustrates his grip on these issues...... and it’s frightening! (see the thread on TW)
"You also say there was no alternative to DK ? well there was, but it was to stay at GP."
I believe the option was to stay at GP and die a slow lingering death, mediocrity or some other attractive option..... or words to that effect. Why wasn’t the question: we can spend £78m+ at Kirkby (which is rising), desert our roots, history and heritage, endanger our identity and expose our fans to the least accessible stadium in the country in a bog standard stadium..... or we can spend the same amount on redeveloping GP with its proven infrastructure, preserving our history and identity, and with some spectacular glossy pics from some real stadium architects to support this option, or how about allowing BESTWAY to follow up on their scheme with full plans and financial details. What’s the problem, surely the deal of the century will always shine through?
I wonder why?
57 Posted 07/07/2008 at 12:27:03
However, don?t you think everything you have posted here has already graced the pages of TW, KEIOC etc. Do other?s not have a right to discuss side issues to DK??
Do we have to continually be bombarded with anti DK opinions for every post on here??
The initial thread was to get the views of Warren Bradley and what his thoughts of us leaving the City are.
Surprisingly Mr Bradley replied, however in very short shrift.
LCC post, ante, prior, pre Warren Bradley have in my eyes not done enough to keep one of the City?s major businesses in the City. If DK goes ahead this will have a horrendous effect on lots of other businesses within the City, businesses that rely on our club staying in the City.
You have your opinions about DK and the people behind it, I have mine about LCC and its leader.
58 Posted 07/07/2008 at 12:59:28
"You have your opinions about DK and the people behind it, I have mine about LCC and its leader."
Even to the extent that you blame him for the Stanley Park non issue when he wasn’t even involved.
The problem I have with this "side issue" is that it detracts for the real wrong-doings and the numerous howlers that have unfolded with DK, which is after all what you are trying to question WB about and therefore my point is relevant. The continual reliance on "slag the politician" even if he wasn’t there, however convenient this may normally be bares no relation to what has happened here.
Personally, I feel those real issues and the future of EFC are far too important to be sidetracked by trivia.
59 Posted 07/07/2008 at 14:43:42
You stated "BK stated that they have showed no interest in EFC and KBC have so they talked to them. They are not somebody who we can do business with example, Bellefield etc, etc"
Did he actually mention Bellefield?
I’m wondering how he knew anything about it, given his limited knowledge of the Kirkby project.
When Kirkby was referred to the GONW, Ian Ross stated in The Echo that ’local councils should be free to make their own decisions regarding Planning applications’. However, when Bellefield was rejected by LCC, he stated that it was ’ a political decision’ and that Everton would ask for a Public Inquiry, if necessary.
The administrative side of the club is run by charlatans at every level.
60 Posted 07/07/2008 at 15:46:40
61 Posted 07/07/2008 at 16:06:37
I bow down to you, you are always correct.
Now one else should have an opinion or talk about anything other than what you want to discuss.
Please tell me what we should all talk about next.
I know DK, planning permissions, poor transport links!!!!
62 Posted 07/07/2008 at 15:47:50
On another point, It beggars belief that LFC/LCC have been allowed to steamroller through their plans for the redevelopment of the Anfield area yet the same couldn?t be done for Walton to include a rebuild of Goodison or given land on our side of Stanley Park to enable us to build anew. It stinks to high heaven and shows quite undeniably that the Liverpool CIty Council favour only one club ? and that ain?t Everton.
63 Posted 07/07/2008 at 11:00:01
I agree with much of what Martin has said about Bradley and, in turn, I agree with what has been posted about BK & KW in response. Why is it deemed counter argument to answer Martin’s accusations of Bradley’s lack of integrity, with counter accusations about BK & KW’s integrity? It would appear to me that they’re all as bad as each other! The more that is dredged up on here about these idiots (true or hearsay) the more it shows why this move has divided so many.
Nobody wants to give up the city, but in my opinion we lost that battle a long time ago. Yes the club are to blame for lack-lustre PR, but the city council has always favoured the club which shares the city’s name. Let’s face it, even when we were winning things, if you asked most people who weren’t into football what city Everton came from, many wouldn’t have known it was Liverpool.
We seem to be arguing about stuff and nonsense now.
It seems to me that most of you are right in some respect, problem is, that doesn’t necessarily make the other guy wrong.
64 Posted 07/07/2008 at 16:21:03
If he had been city council leader for the last 20 years, perhaps fair enough. But how long has he? Two years or so?
Martin, I can understand your frustration on this issue, but the thing is we should be playing at the Kings Dock now. However we failed to come up with £35million.
And the KD was the second time Everton left the city council standing at the altar. They were also expecting us to relocate our training complex to Lee Manor, Netherley, but we went Halewood instead.
As for LFC getting Stanley Park, well they have become the city?s biggest tourist attraction, yes, more so than the Beatles.
People?s Club? No, if we were, supporters would own bulk of the club, like many German and Spanish clubs. As for more Blues than Reds in the city, I don?t think so, not anymore.
65 Posted 07/07/2008 at 17:00:10
One of those lads who is too brave for his own good and takes an awful bloody pounding for 12 rounds against the Champ.
The referee, for reasons best known to himself, won’t stop it.
(It’s as if he enjoys the sight of blood)
Well, I’m throwing the towel into the middle of this ring and stertching my arms out.
"Come on son, you lost but did your best"
66 Posted 07/07/2008 at 17:21:45
67 Posted 07/07/2008 at 19:46:05
I?m not calling the shots on what is and isn?t discussed, I?m merley pointing out that every freakin discussion on here comes down to DK. Was it not your good self Michael or one of your TW colleagues who accepted Mr Handley?s initial post? Was Warren Bradley and LCC not the subject of Mr Handley?s original post?
What are you gonna talk about if Yakubu nets a hatrick against LFC this season? Maybe the Kirkby rail link, Kirkby?s transport infrastructure?
This thread was started by a concerened Evertonian who chose to question Mr Bradley and LCC. It?s now ended up about Tom?s thoughts on DK, well everybody is entitled to their opinion and that includes me.
Does being a long serving and respected poster entitle you to always be correct?
My opinion stands, LCC with or without WB have not done enough to keep EFC in the City. In my opinion they have let down the local businesses who survive off Everton by not trying hard enough to keep the club in the City.
In my opinon LCC have been falling over themselves to help the other side whilst thinking we would just stay and stagnate at GP. Now the horse has bolted they seem to show concern.
They now ask for the project to be called in because it?s too big, in my opinion it?s just dirty tricks to stall the process so as DK falls through. Then we?ll be left to die a death at GP in the shadow of the new Anfield whilst LCC, whether under Bradley?s command or not, do fuck all else for us.
To quote Mr Bradley from his Echo interview with Paddy Shennan ?The tip off I got was Everton were talking to Knowsley and at that point I got Everton in and we did some work on sites ? that was the least I could do. Everton then moved forward.?
So he got a tip off did he, why wasn?t he in the know?? What are these sites he did the work on with Everton?? - ?Everton then moved forward? ? what does that mean?? Does it mean the sites looked at in this instance were not good enough so Everton went elsewhere. Did he not come up with more suitable sites? The plan B everyone wanted!!
If Mr Bradley did at some point get Everton in and did some work on sites then this must surely have been before the infamous exclusivity deal. So LCC were well aware of Evertons intentions and did next to fuck all about it!!
EJ ? you compare me as a grossley overmatched young boxer, I?m neither young nor in my opinion overmatched, I am talking about one subject here whilst the replies I receive have gone off on a tangent.
Come on Michael lets have the poll ? have LCC tried hard enough to keep Everton in the City Yes / No
68 Posted 07/07/2008 at 20:15:45
Tom, I really think you have no chance of Neville grasping your point. It is my opinion, and only an opinion, that many Yes voters are now beginning to intrinsically realise they have been suckered by Frank Spencer and Mr Bean (aka Blue Bill and Bike Man), and are clutching at the shortest of straws to convince themselves otherwise.
Good luck Tom, you will need it!!
69 Posted 07/07/2008 at 21:04:48
I have told you before that I KNOW Everton researched sites in the city with the knowledge of the Council. They could not offer anything suitable....I have told you this before, why keep stating otherwise?
As for the end cost of the new stadium, nobody knows other than those who need to, not you, not me, so why give the worst case scenario all the time.....other than it being more convenient for your argument!
Even if it does cost £78 million......... Tottenham were quoted over £300 million for a new stadia, so it could be a great deal....... deal of the century..... who knows?....... none of us do!
70 Posted 07/07/2008 at 21:23:50
I fully grasp and respect Tom?s point, however it is not what I?m on about. I?m not blaming someone else. What I am doing is knocking their (LCC) inactivity and lack of responsibility to the businesses who depend on Everton staying in the City.
Also Neil, please don?t label me a Yes voter, how do you come to that conclusion? Would I be knocking LCC for not doing their best to keep us in the City if I was a Yes voter?
Then again Neil if you are a No voter can you not accept that the board have acted on their resposibility and decided that the best move is Kirkby?
71 Posted 07/07/2008 at 20:03:40
Councillor Bradley is an Evertonian who wants to se Everton stay in this City. He?s also a politician and I would assume that as such, he would not want to see a multi-million pound business leave this city. You say that LCC, or maybe Mr Bradley on his own, is doing/has done nothing to try and keep Everton in this City. You also say that the Council has done nothing to raise the name of this club in this city.
I don?t want to seem argumentative but the Council offered Everton a World Heritage Site for us to build a stadium. On top of that, it would have cost us around £30 million as our share in a £200 million plus stadium. If you remember, that money was "ring-fenced" for the funding of our share. I don?t have to go in to what happened but the end result is we lost a chance to have one of the World?s most fantastic sights for our stadium. A lot of people were extremely pissed off with EFC, and could you blame them for not falling over themselves with offers for other support for us to build a stadium?
As it was, this took place long before Councillor Bradley became leader. As leader he has offered talks, as I understand it, with Everton to get into discussions with LCC and Bestbuy, to see what mileage there is in a stadium at the "loop". He has also offered talks with EFC about increasing the size of the footprint around Goodison Park. I was at a meeting, along with many others, where he stated that he would be prepared to meet with EFC at any time, to look at whether the school behind the Bullens Rd stand would still be needed and to look at the business on Walton Lane, which the council owned the land on. Not only him but the leader of the Labour opposition, Councillor Anderson spoke out that everything should be tried, to keep EFC in Liverpool.
Unless EFC are prepared to enter talks with other parties, including LCC, nothing can be done. Councillors Anderson and Bradley shook hands in front of the meeting and stated that they would, from then on, seek to meet with EFC as joint spokesmen for the whole of Liverpool City Council.
As far as not doing anything to broadcast the name of EFC, I tend to sympathise and go along with you but in reality, it?s Us, Our Club, who do little to make our name known. Go into town and see if you can find one advert to publicise the launch of our new kit.
Liverpool had adverts about 100 foot tall right in the centre of Lime St. Where the bloody hell is our shop? In the Centre of town? at the Albert Dock? Anywhere that might be visible to the average tourist wandering about the attractions?
No! we?ve got the megastore, out of town and out of sight to all the hundreds of thousands of people coming into this cit for Capitol of Culture. We?ve also got a shop in Birkenhead. Please don?t think I?m in any way being derogatory to the people of Birkenhead but I really can?t see hordes of American, Norwegian, German or any other nationality, making a point of putting the Pyramids of Birkenhead on their "Must See" list. Pyramids of Egypt? now your talking.
So this Council gave Liverpool the opportunity to build on Stanley Park and they?ve grabbed it with both hands. It makes me sick to think that they are going to have a whole bloody park as a walk up to their new ground. But we?ve had our chance. We might still have our chance but in order to take that chance, EFC have got to get into serious talks with any group who have serious plans about the future of EFC.
72 Posted 07/07/2008 at 21:42:56
There is no evidence to support your assertion other than a few single-line descriptions of various sites within the city that is an exact copy of the one released by LFC several years ago with a couple of additions. This also only appeared a few weeks ago and hardly constitutes research. There are no transport studies, no site surveys no requests for planning advice/applications for ANY site, with some inclusions that are quite frankly laughable stocking-fillers for extra effect. As regards GP, there was no feasibility study carried out pre-exclusivity, and even then when one appeared several months after the vote there was no requests for advice regarding expanding footprint or any planning restrictions on the current site...... all of which completely contradicts your stance. This can be readily confirmed by asking the planning officer responsible for Goodison (and indeed anfield too)...... and/ or the head of planning.
As far as cost is concerned, we have been told that the cost is dependent on the enabling cross funding, but that if the full enabling is in place we will be expected to find £78m+. If not, then even more. A far cry from practically nothing
I believe Tottenham’s quote was for an Emirates style high qulaity multi-tiered stadium which would also be on far more expensive real estate than Kirkby. Hence them seeming more likely to redevelop WHL at the moment. One or maybe 2 new stands at WHL might give them what they want.
73 Posted 07/07/2008 at 22:08:30
The cost of the new stadium IS known. It;s £130M.
It is set out quite clearly in the financial statements which accompany the Planning Application. Surely you’re not suggesting Tesco could be lying?
As for comparing it to Spurs being quoted £300M, do you seriously suggest that what they would get for their money would be in any way comparable to the breezeblock park proposed for us?
74 Posted 07/07/2008 at 22:53:48
We cannot afford that amount of money fullstop, so will the end cost be that amount?, I think not! We’re skint!
We are still not aware of the true cost, we can all assume, but we are not sure and do not know. All I have been told is that it is a great deal for Everton.
As far as being a breezeblock park....very harsh, many Evertonians have no problems with the design and look, and even less would if it was in a different location.
It is only the K factor that is the bugbear.
Tom, nice to cross swords again! however you know as well as I do that many deals are sorted prior to any official application/ notification taking place.
75 Posted 08/07/2008 at 00:16:00
Alan, you reckon Liverpool City Council are bad? Get over and deal with Wirral Borough Council where you will find the largest collective of clueless, overpaid, workshy, braindead, salary sucking imbeciles in England. If I wasn’t paying both their wages and stumping up their final salary pensions I wouldn’t be that bothered, but I am paying for them to sit on their arses and do fuck all.
I have yet to meet a single council employee who would last six months in the private sector. They are all complete waste of space and you won’t get the truth out of a single one of them.
76 Posted 08/07/2008 at 00:15:00
- You started posting on ToffeWeb on Saturday; in my book, that means you "just popped up"; Tom has been posting for a long, long time, and as I say, he has earned almost everyone’s respect with his measured, detailed and often enlightening posts.
- The subject of this thread in narrow terms in Warren Bradley.,.. and LCC... and their involvement in Everton’s plans for a new stadium... which is currently down to one and only one option: Destination Kirkby. Hardly what I would call going off topic.
- ?Every freakin discussion on here comes down to DK? ? plain wrong. However, it is the major issue facing the club and its fans at the moment; I have no qualms about the number or length of threads dealing with this issue? as long as posts are sensible.
- ?What are you gonna talk about if Yakubu nets a hatrick against LFC this season?? ? again, that?s the kind of stupid response I?m talking about. Cut it out!
- ?Does being a long serving and respected poster entitle you to always be correct?? ? The issue is not whether he is correct, it?s about whether you call the shots on what he can and can?t post: you don?t.
As for the poll, I?ll ask Lyndon if he thinks it?s worth it but honestly, you are going to get a split because persistent obfuscation appears to be an intrinsic instrument of the spin control. So the poll question will be something like: Who do you think has not done enough to Keep Everton In Our City? (a) Bill Kenwright / Keith Wyness / EFC (b) Terry Leahy and Tesco (c) Warren Bradley / LCC (d) All of the Above.
77 Posted 08/07/2008 at 08:48:41
Its funny because its so cutting - and so very very true.
I blame LCC in all of this. They?ve "facilitated" the move for the RS.
They?ve "facilitated" nothing for Everton FC.
Bent over backwards for LFC and played more than hardball for EFC.
They?re a corrupt bunch on that council (imho) and the financial mismanagement of LCC is ranked amongst the worst of any council in the UK.
A complete shower the lot of them.
And Martin - EVERY WORD of what you said in your email is true mate.
I salute you for putting your neck out and saying it.
78 Posted 08/07/2008 at 10:52:09
I have seen you assert many times that Kirkby as a location is the only bugbear, and that all of the other problems related to the farce are nothing, i.e. if it wasn’t in Kirkby we’d all accept it.
You couldn;t be more wrong.
My biggest objection to going to Kirkby is that you don’t move out of the City to progress - especially one that is currently booming.
In terms of the stadium, I am certainly not alone in thinking it is a cheap pile of shite, poorly designed. I refer you, not least, to the CABE report. I held my views long before that report came out, but it expressed everything I already thought about it. It wouldn’t matter if it was being built on Goodison Road, it would still be a cheap pile of shite.
You say ’we don’t know the true cost - all we can do is assume’. Once again, I’ll point out that the cost, including an allowance for inflation, is stated in the planning documents at £130M, of which we have to find £78M, or 60% of the cost. I completely agree we can’t afford it, and it can’t possibly get any cheaper. It’s been cut to the bone so much that I’m sure they have left out the seats by now, if it wasn’t against the law.
Personally, I don’t know ANY Evertonians who are happy with the design. If you do, they are easily pleased. What did they like? The batman lights? It’s a bigger version of the standard Barr design. See St.Mirren, Warrington Wolves etc.
Iconic? World Class?
79 Posted 08/07/2008 at 11:19:21
LCC want Everton to stay in our city, but to be honest I think they’re just being very carefull not to have their time wasted by the club yet again, LFC are cooporating well, that’s why they get so much help.
It makes me so angry that everywhere you go it’s LFC this LFC that, but what do you expect if Everton FC and it’s board have decided to stray away and have nothing to do with the council? Because that’s how it looks to me, I know ther are going to be a few who disagree with me, but living in Liverpool that’s my view and my opinion from what I see on a daily basis.
80 Posted 08/07/2008 at 15:45:20
Colin Wordsworth why do you feel it necessary on every post (few others about naturally given it’s magnitude) regarding this subject informing everyone that all they’re concerned about is the location, after they’ve spent time detailing their concerns about this project?
You then implore people to look at the positives whilst skirting around the issues and saying that people are simply being negative and/or exagerating... before again repeating that everyone just hates the location.
You might as well spout "Is it cos Is is black?".
81 Posted 08/07/2008 at 18:20:19
It’s simple.......because it is all about location!
...and there are positives!
82 Posted 09/07/2008 at 00:08:52
Can we take it from that, that you believe location is irrelevant? We can drop a stadium anywhere and it will work?
Location is vitally important for stadia above almost any other building type. They come with a whole set of serious people-movement demands. Out of town has been shown to fail dramatically for most of them.
However, I’m all ears for the positives! Let’s be having them! We haven’t heard any since pre-vote!
83 Posted 09/07/2008 at 19:03:16
You know my sentiment on this one, I feel that if this project...just as it is was dropped anywhere within the existing city boundary then there would not be the vehemence against it!
At this stage nobody would bother about the details of transport etc, for most people this would become an irreverence. However, when an argument is put forward against the KP it is used as another nail to hit it with!
As far as positives, there are many and it would be pedantic of you to state otherwise, however, I agree there are negatives as well, as I have stated previously. But I think the positives do outweigh the negatives fto enable our club to compete.
Having seen many post re the Kings Dock stadia, I know it looked fantastic....but with hindsight was that such a great deal for us?
The cost was £30 mill plus for half of the deal!.....and that was 7 or so years ago, when that kind of money was worth a lot more in premiership terms!.....It makes the £78 mill...or less for a ?whole? stadium seem quite cheap doesn?t it?....
84 Posted 09/07/2008 at 23:09:21
The many negatives outweigh the very few positives.
As I see it, location is crucial ( I thought everybody knew that one by now- they even name TV programmes after it )and it’s hard to get to regardless of city boundaries, the cost is too much in one go, the design is very average indeed, the supposed income streams from it are dubious at best and it’s been sold to us all through a very thinly veiled series of lies and deceit making you question who will really gain from it. Additionally, there is the divided fan base and the likely loss of supporters should it happen.
The only positives I can see are more seats and no pillars and probably an easier purchase of food and drink.
These are not enough to outweigh the negatives. Simple. It’s not where it is, although that’s vital, it’s what it is and the potential long term damage it will do that make it unsuitable.
85 Posted 09/07/2008 at 23:24:23
No offence, but I’m still all ears!!!!!
By the way..... the Kings Dock stadium was several levels above the "mid-level" Kirkby. That particular arena in that location would probably be in the £4-500m range now at a conservative estimate. All for a bit more than we got for Mr Rooney just 2 years later. The Transport/infrastructure which is absolutely fundamental for ANY ne wstadium would be literally like comparing Kirkby station to Lime St/Central/moorefields/James Street combined..... ie NO COMPARISON! As with everything else connected to DK!
86 Posted 10/07/2008 at 17:40:04
No offence taken. However the obvious good points are 50000 capacity, new stadium, vast corporate....more money in, great value for money!....as well you know!
Yes the kd looked fantastic......but I would suggest that we have more opportunity to create revenue at DK as we would own it all!
On a previous thread we mentioned Tottenham and their grand ground expansion. Have you seen the cost to redevelop....300 mill!.....
makes DK look fantastic value.
87 Posted 10/07/2008 at 22:42:48
We’re having a shit summer here on earth.
What is the weather like on your planet?
88 Posted 10/07/2008 at 22:02:48
"However the obvious good points are 50000 capacity"
I would at least expect increased capacity, but why can’t that apply to a redeveloped GP? There are no significant problems achieving that capacity and more at the current site. Can Kirkby ever go beyond 50,000 because Knowsley have said not?
Again, that’s the least to expect but.... "new" isn’t always progress but I get your meaning....... and in anycase any redeveloped stands at GP or a build elsewhere would be "new"! so what is the nett gain?
36 boxes or thereabouts is hardly vast. WHL as it is, has double that. The Emirates has more than that on one side. Again, there is no reason why a redeveloped GP could not afford space for as many or more, and also be much closer to the city’s CBD and the more affluent South Liverpool and Wirral subburbs to feed them.
"more money in, great value for money!....as well you know!"
Highly speculative on your part. The club itself announced that it needed average gates in the 40’s to break even when the cost was "practically nothing". It must be mid to high 40’s now if it’s possible at all. What if the cost rises further due to reduced enablers? What if the fans don’t turn up in the required numbers, there is no waiting list, and there are thousands disgruntled enough to vote with their feet? How can either scenario result in more money, especially with the increased debt?
"Yes the kd looked fantastic......but I would suggest that we have more opportunity to create revenue at DK as we would own it all!"
According to Knowsley we would be expected to hand it over to them for about 1/3rd of the year and we cannot have concerts (as if anyone would use it in preference to the other place). Meanwhile BK assured us at the AGM pre Kings Dock that we would receive full revenue streams and have at least part-ownership if I remember rightly. All in a location that the whole of merseyside and beyond could access by single-journey public transport.
"On a previous thread we mentioned Tottenham and their grand ground expansion. Have you seen the cost to redevelop....300 mill!....."
I believe £300m is if they go for a complete redevelopment or relocation..... ie all new double/triple decker stands similar in standard to the Emirates. There is an anouncement due with one option to just redevelop the East stand and possibly the west stand too to bring the capacity upto 50,000 min with further developments of Hotels/residential/commercial type too. It should perhaps also be remembered that they have 20,000 on a waiting list too.
So, are these supposed benefits/positives anything that cannot be achieved at GP or elsewhere? Given the serious negative issues highlighted elsewhere, are they benefits at all? At a cost of "Nothing" there was some breathing space if we all went for it and another 10,000 jumped the bandwagon, now I can’t see any, and according to Merseytravel we’re all out of bandwagons anyway!
89 Posted 11/07/2008 at 19:28:57
Having read many of the articles attached to tottenham it appears that the 300 mill is to redevelop and 500 million to move up to 6 miles away!!!
It makes DK look excellent value..really!
With regards to the present capacity of dk....this would be able to be increased by variation of the premises licence and an application with planning....not insurmountable in a few years.
Nor is the corporate, that could be increased quite easily through a variation of the premises licence.
To redevelop Goodison would mean new stands ie a new ’feel’ to the atmosphere, a totally ’new’ ground, this would cost to do it properly well in excess of the Kirkby cost, so in essence, why not move?
the net gain to us would be a huge saving!
So value for money....yes, and if you look at similar schemes fantastic value for money for a club struggling to hold its own. We just can’t afford the other options.
90 Posted 11/07/2008 at 22:47:35
"it appears that the 300 mill is to redevelop and 500 million to move up to 6 miles away!!!"
Perhaps, but you’re not really comparing like for like are you? These are high-end stadia designs with multiple tiers and extensive exec and premier seating provision, not basic stepped 2 tier structures that don’t even turn the corners...... There is also large additional developments attached I believe (enablers?), is this cost included. Nevertheless, have you not noticed that your figures show a comparative saving for redevelopment in situ of over 60%, yet later on in the same posting you say it is more expensive to redevelop???? Fact is, it can never be more expensive to redevelop 2-3 stands than to have to pay for 3/4 of a whole new stadium, especially if the redevelopment is only partial on 1-2 of the sides at GP (ie an additional tier on the Bullens or Parkend or both.
"With regards to the present capacity of dk....this would be able to be increased by variation of the premises licence and an application with planning....not insurmountable in a few years."
They can’t make 50,000 work on the transport strategy, let alone anymore. Knowsley’s own planning statement certainly doesn’t suggest that expansion is a formality, it states categorically that the capacity will never be greater than 50,400. I haven’t read anything from the club to dispute this.
"Nor is the corporate, that could be increased quite easily through a variation of the premises licence."
Where would the additional boxes physically go since all the available between-stand locations are accounted for? The corners may yield a few more, but the rear of the upper tiers are too distant for exec boxes since they are approx 60m+ away from the pitch. There is not sufficient flexibility in the design to expand the number of boxes to anything like even WHL’s present number (120).
"this would cost to do it properly well in excess of the Kirkby cost"
Not according to your own figures.
"the net gain to us would be a huge saving!"
Again, not according to your own figures.
"if you look at similar schemes fantastic value for money for a club struggling to hold its own. We just can?t afford the other options."
Which schemes, and which options? How does this explain why the vast majority of clubs having chosen redevelopment ahead of relocation? How many options have been presented to us? There is no way for instance that creating a wrap-around tier, to go around Bullens and Parkend with exec boxes on the Bullens side and a new corner section would cost the same as DK. This would bring the whole stadium except for the Gwladys Street upto the height of the Top Balcony, and would readily achieve 53,000+. These would be modern but complimentary structures, blending in with the existing ones preserving and actually enhancing the atmosphere and intimacy of the current stadium. If anything bringing the whole stadium together. What value would you put on continuity? Furthermore, it could be done in stages to test demand which cannot happen elsewhere, and will never represent the same logistical gamble that is DK. Again, what value do you put on that?
Report abusive content
91 Posted 11/07/2008 at 23:45:26
The reason for the extra cash re Tottenham will be for the land, ours is fundementally free.
Also Tottenhams footprint is better ie not as hemmed in by houses etc, that goes for all the other redevelopments ie Newcastle and Villa
Again, if your theory is true, why do the dark side have to move?, why choose to build a new stadia. Tottenhams preferred option is to move, but it all comes down to money.
So, the parallel with Tottenham is the fact that a similar capacity stadia, more modern is going to cost 300 mill to redevelop properly.....300 mill Tom!
We are potentially getting a stadia for less than 78 million, it has to be great deal for us.
A variation re the premises licence would not be difficult application with the council and would more than likely be successful(re DK)
The other unknown in your argument, as well versed as it always is, is that we do not know whether LCC will agree to Goodison being redeveloped in the manner you suggest...or any manner.
It is going to be very interesting to see the Govts reading on the situation which is due soon.
It could be the end of all the arguments.
92 Posted 12/07/2008 at 00:00:23
"The reason for the extra cash re Tottenham will be for the land, ours is fundementally free."
Isn’t the land we are already on absolutely free? I was actually talking about the cost comparison you gave, surely if they move they also realise the full value of the land that they now own...... yet still, redevelopment is 60+% cheaper for them!
"Also Tottenhams footprint is better ie not as hemmed in by houses etc, that goes for all the other redevelopments ie Newcastle and Villa"
Newcastle have serious topographical issues at St James’, plus a row of listed Georgian terraces right up against one side. They also had only 2 smallish capacity stands when they started their redevelopment.... i.e. very little of value to lose and lots of problems to overcome. We already have 40,000+ seats including 2 classic Leitch double-decker stands and a relatively modern triple-decker that can be completely remodelled.
Villa actually demolished a whole row of houses and bridged an existing road, we don’t need to knock-down a whole street to well exceed their current capacity.
"Again, if your theory is true, why do the dark side have to move?, why choose to build a new stadia. Tottenhams preferred option is to move, but it all comes down to money."
I don’t believe they necessarilly have to move, although with their developments to date at Anfield they painted themselves into a corner restricting further expansion to a degree, and perhaps they felt a blank canvas was a simpler solution. They also have vast demand pushing them forward, and before the yanks agents Gillette and Hicks they had comparative wealth to dream that high. Wew have neither......Tellingly, they chose not to go too far though.
"So, the parallel with Tottenham is the fact that a similar capacity stadia, more modern is going to cost 300 mill to redevelop properly.....300 mill Tom!"
You might need to reference your figures, since it seems unlikely that expanding WHL by replacing the east Stand alone to achieve 50,000 could possibly cost that much. I would estimate that this represents just 20,000 new seats in total, and that would equate to £15,000 per seat (DK = £2k per seat), making it the most expensive stand ever, anywhere! When you consider the emirates construction costs were something like a quarter of this it seems highly unlikely that the figure is either accurate or doesn’t include additional developments such as hotels/apartments etc which were shown in the drawings I have seen.
"We are potentially getting a stadia for less than 78 million, it has to be great deal for us."
Potentially more than £78m too!
"The other unknown in your argument, as well versed as it always is, is that we do not know whether LCC will agree to Goodison being redeveloped in the manner you suggest...or any manner."
Having discussed these issues with the planning officer, I can assure you that I would be far more confident of that than I would of dk ever being expanded, or more to the point that we could ever all get there even as illustrated by the transport strategy (or lack of). BTW, the planning officer is very approachable, and will tell you that they are very open to the idea of expansion.
93 Posted 12/07/2008 at 21:44:50
So, in your estimation, how much to fully develop the old lady?
I will accept that it can be done, but it is all down to cost for the club......and what would it look like?
I disagree with you re the signature of Goodison....it is probably the most ’locked in’ of all mentioned grounds and that will cause problems in itself re knocking down houses etc
re the dark side, their signature is similar to ours.....they are moving....yes, not far.....but moving all the same. Surely if the extension of existing grounds is correct why are they moving? and why are Chelsea looking to move!...has the time for redevelopment passed us by years ago?
94 Posted 12/07/2008 at 23:44:58
You proved it yourself with the spurs figures that it is often cheaper to redevelop. Much cheaper in spur’s case!The fact that the vast majority of clubs remain at their original site also demonstrates this..... if you don’t necessarily need 4 new stands and there is scope for expansion, you probably don’t need to move at all. LFC with their massive fanbase and turnover can afford more than us (or at least they could before the Yanks, when they first applied to move). They have poorly exploited their current site, and haven’t taken full advantage of the space available during their previous developments, resulting in a stadium that could be quite problematic to expand without capacity losses with limited corporate scope in the short term etc. They could afford to avoid this, not sure if that’s the case now though. That does not necessarily apply to us, where there is acres of space behind the Parkend, and a side stand not yet at maximum rake in its upper tier, and with only 2 roads abutting at the rear and a school that may be relocating in any case, meaning minimal end terrace house demolitions, not whole streets as at Villa, Anfield, Blackburn etc.
Chelsea have quite severe restrictions in that there are train lines behind one end and along the back of the east stand, they are also probably at maximum height on all sides. (They’re also loaded) We are not, nor are we bridging train lines. That said Man Utd think it may be reasonable to do just that, and at great expense. They have the largest out of town fanbase in the world, they could build anywhere, yet they chose to stay put and continually build on what they had. This approach was also adopted at all the great European superstadia Bernabeu, San Siro, Nou Camp etc etc
95 Posted 13/07/2008 at 13:14:27
Yes I agree on a like for like basis that redevelopment is cheaper. However, ours is not like for like...we are being quite heavily subsedised by Tesco and that makes the KP project that much cheaper!
And that is why the club is going for Kirkby. Redevelopment of GP would still be problematical.
PS don’t you sleep?......every e-mail is late on!
96 Posted 13/07/2008 at 13:19:15
On projects of this scale is there a "cooling-off" period? Is there a built-in window for an appeal or challenge by interested parties? Or has that stage gone thus making the forthcoming decision final and binding?
97 Posted 13/07/2008 at 18:22:36
"we are being quite heavily subsedised by Tesco and that makes the KP project that much cheaper!"
Well that’s news to me, and Tesco too surely! They have stated categorically that they wouldn’t be contributing. The reality is, we are paying over 3/4 of the construction costs, with the rest coming from land release/enabling cross-funding etc. Do we really need to build 3/4 of a stadium at GP to reach the same capacity and number of boxes etc? Do we really need 10k new seats right now, or a few new players to push us to the next level and the real gravy train, the one earned by success on the pitch? If we can do both (which doesn’t look the case given recent goings-on) then ionly n the short term we need just 11-13,000 new seats to both eradicate obstructed views and reach 50k unobstructed seat capacity. This will never cost more than the 35-40k we’re expected to pay for at Kirkby in one go!
"PS don?t you sleep?......every e-mail is late on! "
Kids to bed and all that!
98 Posted 13/07/2008 at 21:54:11
I feel it is extremely important, given our obvious financial hole, that we move ahead as soon as is possible.
Maybe we will, as you say be contributing towards the building costs. But due to the fact we are using Tescos builders, the normal building costs are far lower than normal.
In essence we are getting £200 mill worth of stadia for less than £78 mill taking into account also that the land is free.
It was explained to me thus, Tesco are providing the skeleton and the infrastructure, we fill in the inside of the stadium with the seats etc.
I seriously feel the club needs fresh imputus, almost a rebranding to move us forward and compete and attract the necessary investment to purchase ?better? players. Surely a brand new purpose built stadium will do that!
Kids are great! ....
99 Posted 14/07/2008 at 12:15:35
"In essence we are getting £200 mill worth of stadia for less than £78 mill taking into account also that the land is free.
It was explained to me thus, Tesco are providing the skeleton and the infrastructure, we fill in the inside of the stadium with the seats etc."
When the club were first attempting to sell this whole scheme to us as a high quality stadium etc, they argued against those saying it was a cheap construction by saying it was a £150m then even £200m stadium to convince us otherwise, they also said that we would be paying for the fit-out only etc and that this would be in the region of just £10-20m. Now you are telling us the fit-out alone is £78m? Are we all getting chesterfields to sit on? In actual fact, the construction costs etc have now long since been released. These are fixed at approx £100m according to the club. In essence we are paying for over 3/4 of the stadium. The land was gifted to us and the enabling cross funding provided the rest. We will benefit to the tune of one new stand at most!!! Is this really worth it for what will probably be the least well served stadium in the country (nothing like the best as promised)? Is this really worth it, for what the club themselves now describe as a mid-level quality stadium? Is this really worth it given the potential loss of identity, history/heritage and growing opposition? ALL for just the cost of one new mid-level stand out of sight, out of mind and out of the city?!
Personally, I put far more value on where we are and what that means, and what could be achieved there for the same amount!!! I’m not at all against moving per se, but somethings you can’t buy, and Kirkby doesn’t even provide the basics!!
100 Posted 14/07/2008 at 20:13:14
A tadge unfair methinks re DK, I really do not think the design is that bad!......
You always put across a clever and educated argument, however I think that £78 mill is the max we will pay. The final cost will probably be closer to £50 mill. It is value.
Re the loss of heritage etc, that is a different matter. The question is, have we lost the city already?.....at the moment we are a poor second to be honest!
I do not think JJB are doing much for us commercially and we are not being pushed as we should be within the city......are the club to blame?.....possibly, but it also down to market forces...and the CL.
So, by breaking away from the City, could this controversially be the best thing to happen to our club?
Having a brand new stadium at minimal cost could make us.
101 Posted 14/07/2008 at 20:46:14
If that?s the case, what?s the point of even staying in Merseyside? Identity is a valuable asset, and is tied in with location, hence the "people?s club" tag so eagerly championed by the club. What you?re saying makes picking Kirkby as a location even less logical. Marginalising our support and our club?s very perception by pushing us out of sight at the edge of its traditional catchment. Beyond the city?s boundaries is just countryside until you get to a few rugby towns then city?s and towns with their own clubs. Where/who do you propose we make our sales pitch too there... the sheep? Running for the hills isn?t the answer, we have a strong and loyal local support that we can build on in a city region of 1.5 million. No shopkeeper would move to the end of the high street when he already has a good central spot with loyal customers and a high footfall. Kirkby isn?t even in the same town!
102 Posted 14/07/2008 at 21:21:01
I wasn?t expecting such a prompt reply! I think the club is between the devil and the deep blue sea! They are damned if they do and damned if they don?t, only hindsight and history will know who is right.
In truth, I accept what you say and agree with much, however the club will still operate within the city boundaries as now, the stadia just being a few miles out of town..... but still in Merseyside.
103 Posted 14/07/2008 at 23:16:33
Location is everything..... the "few" miles you mention equates to so much more that is entirely detrimental. A stadium above all other building-types is dependent on mass-people-movement. This cannot be readily achieved at a peripheral site with no mass transit. On the otherhand, Liverpool has the lowest car ownership of any major British city. Only 38% of households have direct access to a car...... yet this site is overwhelmingly car-reliant, hence the park and ride/hike plan. Even then, there are only a handful of lanes feeding Kirkby from the main catchment area, so not only is it not desirable for ecological reasons it is impractical due to the inevitable congestion when the majority arrive and leave via these few lanes/trains. GP is served by something like 8-10 times the public transport of Kirkby, also with dozens of traffic lanes radiating north and south of the stadium, and the inner ring road also close by. Cherryfield drive has one dual carriageway serving it from Liverpool and the east lancs a mile or so away which is already at saturation, and a motorway that never enters Liverpool skirts past too. Next to no Liverpool districts and No Wirral districts (1/3rd of our season tkt holders) at all have any direct services to Kirkby. Bottom line is, if you struggle to get to and from GP, then unless you’re a KIrkby resident this will only be much worse for the vast majority. We are supposed to be in the business of putting more bums on seats with this venture, less convenience rarely does that!!
For another shopping analogy..... Lewis’ in town only had a bus stop moved around the corner during the big dig and they nearly went out of business..... we’re increasingly a convenience led society!!!
104 Posted 15/07/2008 at 00:06:41
I hope you are wrong on this one.....in the best possible way! I have always stated it is a heart against head decision for me.
I would assume that most of the transport issues will be addressed if the day ever comes!, it will be the clubs’ and to a lesser extent the new councils’ responsibility for this.
We must hope that the club has got this sorted...
I am aware you will tell me otherwise....
Anyway, been a good one, probably off the boards tomorrow, I await the govts decision with interest.......
hope the kids went to bed ok!
105 Posted 15/07/2008 at 08:55:02
Knowsley’s only objective has been to get the shops. The stadium is theirs and Tesco’s enabler for that..... (if Blears can be hoodwinked). It was never the other way around in reality. Our saving has been the cost of approx one new stand (it was supposed to be practically a whole new stadium bar the fit-out), they will have received the go-ahead for a shopping centre approx 5 times the size of that legislated for in local/regional planning rules and the prestige of a premiership club on their patch with free access to all its facilities for a third of the year. Who is gaining the most?
I was on the design team for Merseytram line one from Kirkby (based in Kirkby) and was only too familiar with the issues regarding infrastructure and road/public-transport capacities etc. That is why we never saw any version of the transport strategy till months after the vote when they had to be released for planning, the initial outline versions were fanciful in the extreme with no viable solutions to the massive shortfall at this site. The questions were posed at the early consultations and they had no answers. Subsequent revisions have done nothing to address this, they only consulted with Merseytravel earlier this year and were told point blank that their park and ride scheme was impossible. There will be no new station, no new bridge and no increase in train frequency, no additional access points through the M57 from the Liverpool side of the motorway. The Park and ride scheme has decended into farce with some car parks upto 2 miles away, and insufficient buses to serve them. Crush-loading of trains will still only produce a small fraction of the train capacity available at Sandhills/Kirkdale, not to mention the inconvenience of forced train changes. The transport consultants cannot get the access/dispersal rates to work at 50k capacity, it is very unlikely that an additional 20% could be accommodated without reconfiguring Liverpool’s whole public transport network, and this wont happen for our benefit as it would cost £millions, hence no real prospect of expansion. Evertonians are a hardy bunch and most may adapt, but if we really need to not only entice all of are existing regulars but to add 20-30% to make this project work, then making it more difficult to attend is surely not the way. Kirkby represents so much more than a few extra miles up the east lancs when you break it down.
106 Posted 15/07/2008 at 09:35:37
Can you provide the answer to the question I posed a bit earlier?
Save you scrolling back it was.....
"If the proposals ARE green-lighted what happens next?
On projects of this scale is there a "cooling-off" period? Is there a built-in window for an appeal or challenge by interested parties? Or has that stage gone thus making the forthcoming decision final and binding?"
107 Posted 15/07/2008 at 11:16:46
I’m really not too sure, I assume the contributing partners will have to first prove that they have the funds to complete the project including EFC who are yet to confirm values for Bellefield/GP nor secure naming rites.
Furthermore, other interested parties such as Grosvenor and St Mowdens will have their own objections and assume they can mount a legal challenge. Grosvenor’s investment alone is several times greater than the the value of the whole Kirkby scheme. They will demand a public hearing on planning grounds etc. They were never informed of any competing developments when they agreed to completely transform the city centre and wont take this lying down. They will argue that the city centre is for the whole of the city region including Kirkby and the rest of Knowsley with thousands of its residents employment and the city’s whole future dependent on its success. St Mowdens similarly!
108 Posted 15/07/2008 at 11:38:35
There may well be arguments/challenges from interested parties but will they have any "legal" basis? Does due process allow for them?
In other words, theoretically, if Hazel Blears gives the scheme the go-ahead could Keith get busy with his shovel five minutes later?
109 Posted 15/07/2008 at 13:29:14
I’m not sure but I would have thought that the fact that they made a massive commitment that is undermined by this development according to all independent studies and that contravenes ALL planning legislation could give them a legal standpoint from which to appeal. Also, Mr "Grosvenor" is very much part of the establishment, and not without influence!!
110 Posted 15/07/2008 at 16:29:46
Thanks for that. I?m just asking because no-one seems to really know if a "yes" decision will be the end of all challenges or appeals.
I mean the objections you rightly suggest Grosvenor et al could raise in response to a "yes" decision, well, would Hazel Blears have not already considered them in reaching her decision?