First, I make no secret of the fact that I have undertaken work in Knowsley and for Knowsley MBC, any more than I make a secret of the work that I have undertaken for Liverpool City Council, Sefton MBC, St Helens Council (all opponents of the development) ? in fact every local authority on Merseyside and about 20 other local authorities from London to Sunderland ? since I started my company in Liverpool some years ago.
I chose to start my business here because of my commitment to the City and the whole of Merseyside. I want to see every part of the region prosper. My commitment is shaped in part by being born in Kirkdale off Stanley Road and being rehoused in Kirkby by Liverpool City Council in the late 1950s ? when our estate was very firmly in Liverpool.
The use of the "discovery" of my work for Knowsley seems to be standard practice by some opponents of "Destination Kirkby." They give only that part of the evidence that serves their interests even if it turns the truth into a falsehood. Just to save anyone the trouble, I think that I might have undertaken work for Tesco some years ago, along with a host of other quality companies.
The attack on Peter Kilfoyle MP illustrates this willingness to play fast and loose with the facts. No-one could doubt his integrity and commitment to the needs of his constituency especially after he resigned from choice Ministerial position because he believed the needs of his constituents and others from Labour's heartlands were being neglected. He chose the people of Walton over the perks of power. And so, as an Everton supporter and MP he was seen at Goodison and KEOIC launched its spurious attack on him. No wonder the House of Commons authorities rejected these allegations.
Yes, and just in case the Miss Marples waste their time, I did share a platform with Peter when he was a Minister in 1998, launching a project to support Microbusinesses in deprived areas (I think) and yes, we had coffee in the House of Commons the same day.
Lyndon Lloyd's piece is a good example of this type of propaganda. He talks about the population of Kirkby being 40,000, ignoring the fact that the local authority area in question is Knowsley with a population of over 150,000 and a catchment of well over 500,000. Does anyone really think that Tesco don't know how to choose a retail location? It is like questioning the viability of Liverpool One on the basis that the population of the two nearest wards in Liverpool only have a population of 25,000.
On the specifics of my interview on Radio Merseyside, I did not attribute the "call in" to the actions of KEOIC, but placed most of the responsibility to a failure of will by the government and a misunderstanding of the dynamics of retailing by the other Merseyside local authorities.
The government's action does, of course, create a new situation. One in which Liverpool City Council must now "put up or shut up." Having been around when Everton first sought — and were refused planning permission ? for a new stadium in Stanley Park ? unlike quess who? I was, also, there when the Council's refusal to give a commitment on planning permission for retailing at Goodison scuppered the Kings Dock.
I, also, read Warren Bradley's most recent proposal for a ground share with Liverpool ? with Everton as the tenants of the lovable reds? Fourth or is it fifth time lucky with Liverpool City Council?
We are clearly in a new situation ? one in which I for one hope is judged on the basis of the full truth and not half truths. I'd, also, like to see an end to the abuse, the threats and the graffiti ? not only to me, but to the everyone associated with the club ? none of which brings any credit on the club.
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 09/08/2008 at 21:02:41
2 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:04:08
I always maintain that something fundamentally must have been wrong if the trump players we had couldn’t avert the call in. Players like Bill Kenwright, Green, Tesco Terry are revered in the highest of circles.
I think it’s wrong people called your integrity into the picture many times over the last few days, however I think with ’probablys’ and hypothetical scenarios you will only invite it more over the coming weeks, whilst people believe your posts are motivated to coincide with the clubs own propaganda.
I must say I am a very concerned Evertonian at the moment.
3 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:27:47
Lets see if LCC can put up or shut up indeed. If they cant put up then EFC needs to expose them for everything they are.
re: being tenents of the kopites. I think sharing is one thing I can get my head ahead, what I never could is being a tennant at their stadium. I’d go as far as to say as I would be ashamed. I’d rather be a tennant of Fred and Rosmary West than of that shower of sh*te!
4 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:33:11
Even if I did vote NO I’d want nothing to do with KEIOC. They are a stain on our club regardless of your vote.
5 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:31:10
Warren Bradley is a joke who has done nothing what so ever to help everton. He was more interested in liverpool 1 and what the retail side of Kirby may take away from it.
6 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:28:49
7 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:10:05
Regarding the criticism of your alleged placement of blame for the "call in" at the door of KEIOC, I didn?t hear the radio programme in question but you were directly quoted by numerous sources and I have yet to read or hear anyone challenging the suggestion that you were explicitly alleging that KEIOC and other grass-roots opponents were resonsible for the Government's decision. I'm quite amenable to being corrected, though.
I would counter, however, that my citing of Kirkby?s 40,000 population in the article you reference above was propaganda in the context of the debate. If the size of the proposal in relation to the town?s population was not an important consideration, I?m sure GONW, in the extra time taken to analyse the ins and outs, would have come down on your side of the argument and waved the scheme through. As it is, they must have seen sufficient merit in the objections by neighbouring authorities to make the decision they did.
8 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:42:42
- He can?t even get the capacity of the stadium right - he says 55,000.
- He ignores any additional costs that a bigger stadium used for more events will undoubtedly have and just assumes that any extra revenue is profit.
- He?s taken no account of the restrictions that Kirkby council would impose on the use of the stadium. Also ignored the costs to EFC of use of the stadium by local groups free of charge.
The trouble is because he has the title professor, some people believe him implicitly and because of this, he is more dangerous than even Wyness was with his bullshit.
9 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:45:27
10 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:38:39
’methinks you doth protest too much’
However, if I put that to one side for one moment it seems to me that people like yourself and Peter Kilfoyle are wheeled on to the stage when an ’ independent voice’ is needed by the Club after yet another PR cock up. That’s nothing personal, Prof. Cannon, just the honest truth and my view from where I am sitting.
One thing you could perhaps comment on is your opinion on the lack of a presence ( Shop or Museum or both combined ) in the City centre during the Capital of Culture year. Surely, unless it lost a very large amount of money it would be invaluable PR in a year with so many visitors?
11 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:33:18
Why is it that you think recent comments are ?stock in trade of one side of the debate in the ground move?.
You are speculative (at best) yet again with this comment as you have been on other occasions, as outlined within the criticism which has forced you to ?come to the table? now.
My thoughts on the ground move vary. Ideally I don?t want to move, realistically I know in the circumstances the current proposal may be the only viable option.
I have contentions with access / transport which the club do not want to validate and I have sentiment.
On the other hand, I appreciate we can not raise funding to build a new stadium unilaterally ( I do also question where we can find £78M for DK by the way).
I have further contentions with how the club present the picture, choices and the blanket which the excluysivity agreement with Tesco provides.
Overall, a decent argument can still, still even now, persuade me either way. But it has to be reasoned and stack up.
To date, the club?s refusal to admit certain critical issues with their plan does not bode well and smacks of pushing idealism through at any cost.
The point I am trying to illustrate is that I do not have a firm foot in either camp, just many concerns.
Preferences yes, blind bloody mindedness, no.
It is with this in mind that I take issue with you in your second sentance. You may well make no secret of your connection with a vested interest, but anyone listening to your piece on Radio Merseyside was not made privy to this vital piece of information by either the station, the presenter nor yourself if you thought they may have overlooked this important point, of which of course you profess to make no secret.
Were you the victim of editorial malpractice as this all does your impartial standing and reputation no favours whatsoever.
12 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:34:46
For some reason this whole debate is getting out of hand the ?I told you so? brigade of KEIOC are now bordering on the smug and yet stupid, their passion to maintain EFC at Goodison smacks not only of the Ludites but of a ?blind man saying I don?t see the train coming to hit me between the eyes?. Anyone remmeber the sketch at the Amnesty International. ?We were so.....poor!?? . Get my drift? If we keep looking backwards the we will only go one way.
The economics are plain and the credit crunch is the tip of the iceberg, the longer we stare at our navels the bigger the bill. I would love to see the Blues at a state of the art re-developed Goodison Park and to hell with the redsh*te and I promise, if I win the Lottery I will stump up half my winnigs to acheive that but is that, yeah, about as realistic as my odds of winning the lottery.
Our dear Warren has spoken and stirred things to such an extent I now suspect him to be a Red.
For good sake SHOW me some real alternatives along with a serious plan, or Shut the eff up and get behind the team, we have a week before the new season yet all I hear is either whinging bastards or doom merchants. I DON?T WANT TO HEAR YOU, I AM AN AN EVERTONIAN TIL I DIE and I Believe in supporting the CLUB and Davey Moyes. Blind passion as it may be.
13 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:38:16
No the problem is your quotes on 55,000 gates when it is capped at 50,401. £5M lost revenue from concerts when you know no concerts allowed. And is it not true that Everton have never enquired about Stanley Park. It is now 2008 and anybody with access to the net can get hold of the relevant information. So it leaves me to conclude that these are either blatant lies or Professors of business aint what they used to be.
Sorry if this sounds like an attack but I really am at a loss to explain you quotes please do explain.
14 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:38:05
15 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:06:03
This debate is getting out of hand you say, so why come on here and inflame things?
16 Posted 09/08/2008 at 19:52:47
Lack of a ground move will cost us our Manager, transfer kitty down by £15M this year? Holding pop concerts at Kirkby... I haven't got the time or the will to put all the facts and figures down here but, Tom, please do yourself a favour and read up on the so called 'facts' before you start mouthing off in the press. It really is starting to get embarrassing.
17 Posted 09/08/2008 at 21:47:23
"Even if I did vote NO I?d want nothing to do with KEIOC. They are a stain on our club regardless of your vote."
This, after reading every word of every article I could possibly get my hands on concerning this complex issue ..... is the one thing I have determined to be true. Well put John.
I did vote yes but with little conviction. If asked again I would vote the same but with REAL conviction this time.
18 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:08:20
I?m sorry, Mr Cannon, but there have been no threats or abuse aimed at you. In fact, your son came on here to defend you and was treated with the greatest of courtesy by all of TW commenters that took part in that thread.
This is nothing more than a sob story with little in the way of substance to back up any of your claims. It?s not going to stop anyone criticising your lame strawman arguments.
19 Posted 09/08/2008 at 20:34:34
But, in my opinion, he is the mouth piece for the board, he is popping up everywhere now, and the problem for him, is that what he is now spouting, is a load of nonsense. Doesn?t the man realise that his integrity, is being questioned by many, many Evertonians?
It?s a shame really, because, by becoming the clubs mouthpiece, he is losing the respect of Evertonians.
20 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:15:52
21 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:09:57
Whilst it?s wrong that you?ve had to suffer abuse (particularly if it involves your home or your family) I?m afriad you?ve brought it on yourself for the scaremongering you?ve done on behalf of our club.
Two statements you?ve made through the media which stick in my mind:
1. That Everton will become a Championship team if we don?t leave Goodison for Kirkby.
2. The ?call in? has cost Everton £15M a year.
You?re a Professor, yet you?ve shown no evidence of your theories whatsoever. You knew exactly what you were doing by coming out with these statements to the press, you were trying to scare Evertonians into following the party line at the club, Evertonians who may well believe what you say due to your title. That to me is an abuse of power and status.
22 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:31:43
The quickest way to improve our revenue is to get better results. We were 11 points away from Champions League football last season. Anyone who says we could not have won four more matches last season wasn't watching. We didn't fail to qualify for the Champions League because we couldn't beat teams in the top four. We failed to do it because we too often dropped points against teams we were widely expected to beat and didn't. Aggression and Consistency of form are the issues on the field.
23 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:10:03
No doubt Mr Cannon, you would refute the above but that is by-the-by as I suspect the damage, whether by accident or other, has been done. The as yet to be posted responses will be all the proof you need.
I also suspect the irony of the contents of your opening line (abuse, threats and simple falsehoods!!) would not be lost on genuinely concerned Evertonians who have within the last calender year been labelled by employees of Everton FC; ’drunken knobheads;’ threatened by Everton FC with ’legal action;’ and have systematically been drip fed misinformation and untruths by the board and employees of Everton FC, their associates and the local press.
Finally I guess you deserve some credit in that you are consistent; as with your ’open Letter to the Chairman,’ your latest foray into the Everton limelight is littered with assumptions, unsubstantiated claims and to coin a phrase; ’simple falsehoods.’
Once again, I’m sure they will be flagged up and proved to be all of the above in the below posts.
24 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:47:37
25 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:46:40
The anti brigade have not got a clue about what we will do next and how it can be achieved. if only their abiltiy to be destructive was matched by an ability to be constructive then we would have a new ground and six new players by now.
No new players and hundreds of people dancing on the grave of a constructive plan. I think I will be self harming before Christmas.
There will be a reward for the person who makes the obvious comment.
26 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:59:24
It is noticeable that you haven?t attempted to defend the fact that you have played rather fast and loose with the financial facts surrounding the move.
27 Posted 09/08/2008 at 23:08:35
What?s my reward then?
28 Posted 09/08/2008 at 23:07:07
"How dare you behave in such a way to me and my fine colleagues, your behaviour is a detriment to us all"... fnah.
29 Posted 09/08/2008 at 23:14:57
Correct me if I’m wrong here but was is not catagorically stated by Ian Ross (I presume speaking on behalf of the Chairman) that the monies for transfers were in no way related to a decison on Kirkby?
Or was that another to add to the long and ever growing list?
30 Posted 09/08/2008 at 23:19:44
31 Posted 09/08/2008 at 22:54:36
I was surprised by Lyndon?s use of the population stats for Kirkby - about 1/10 th of the City of Liverpool - and wondered how this scheme could have ever been floated in the first place. Tesco - mugs? I doubt it. EFC? Who knows. Perhaps we should sell ourselves to an Indonesian businessman.
32 Posted 09/08/2008 at 23:20:27
33 Posted 09/08/2008 at 23:22:48
I was not linking two depressing facts, not claiming the lack of players was a result of the call in.
The ground thing would not seem very important to me if we got some decent signings in quickly. Shallow I know, but the match is the only thing that really matters.
34 Posted 09/08/2008 at 23:23:15
Smoke and mirrors, the Everton Way!
35 Posted 09/08/2008 at 23:47:06
"Mr Cannon, as far as this Evertonian is concerned, you are just another mouthpiece, for the shambles of a Board running our club." And there are plenty of other fans, who can also see you for what you are.
36 Posted 09/08/2008 at 23:19:18
WE ARE EVERTON; Blue Bill is Everton and although he is skint me myself would rather him at the moment than what other people have got ... apart from Chelsea freaks. Only Man Utd who already had success have done better (i.e. Champions League). Villa might work, they are looking like their owner actually knows what he is doing: £18m for Barry... he he -- but the rest, Man City, Liverpool, even Arsenal, Derby.... we have been in the top six 3 of the last 4 seasons with really good youngsters coming through.
DONT PANIC; TRUST IN MOYES... by the way Blue Bill told me tonight one signing tonight/tomorrow we will like, three next week. Who knows... what I do know is I took my son and his cousin tonight to the match, they met Kenwright, Moyes, Cahill, Arteta, Yakubu, Snods and the fit girl from Setanta. Apart from the last one, how many other clubs make the players and manager available that much? Yeah, we all have gripes and moans but we are blues and I feel even if there are no signings we will be okay... Top 8 without ? top 5 with good signings. ..COYB
37 Posted 10/08/2008 at 00:02:17
I know nothing about KEIOC but suspect that they are passionate Evertonians who would condemn the actions of a minority who go too far. Time now for some football.
38 Posted 10/08/2008 at 00:43:05
Dare I say I say what’s wrong with a groundshare with LFC if it works for the San Siro why not LFC and EFC?
Both clubs could prosper and impede on the MUFC, AFC anf CFC alliance!
I may not be liked for saying this, but hey does common sense prevail?
Lets hope Moyes can sign the players he want
at £3 million Smith would be worth the Gamble!
39 Posted 10/08/2008 at 00:29:10
Why did supporters like myself who can?t afford a season ticket but over the course of a season spend more, miss out on the vote? Also, how do you explain the constant shifting of information coming from the club (ie. cost to the club and quality of ground and capacity)? KEIOC had an agenda for which their name suggest but they were also there to challenge the club and I?m afraid the club or at least the custodians failed miserably.
So while you have a go at Lyndon Lloyd?s dodgy population calculations, what about the club saying it went to the vote and the majority voted Yes? Well I say the criteria for the vote was dodgy and this makes it invalid and void. Next time, let people vote going into the ground. Oh no, we might get 10,000 kopites spending nearly £40 a go to sabotage it...
40 Posted 10/08/2008 at 01:25:40
Kirkby was wrong, wrong, wrong for a Football Club with the heritage & tradition of EFC.
A sorry apology for a stadium in Kirkby with enabling retail is simply not good enough for Everton.
Offensive material removed by moderator
41 Posted 10/08/2008 at 01:34:19
Thing is though Tom, you set yourself up as a football expert; the only snag being most of what you spout is self serving, sniffing round Kenwright?s arse nonsense.
Unnecessarily confrontational content removed by moderator
42 Posted 10/08/2008 at 06:24:26
You complain about "half truths " in your article, but you then go on to make what every one of us know to be wildly inaccurate claims about issues that are central to the debate, pop concerts, capacity etc.
If you are recieving threats, that is scandelous and the police should be notified; however, we all know the best way to avoid abuse would be to not deliberately draw attention to ourselves in the middle of a raging argument, we may not have all gone on to be professors, nonetheless, most of us had learned that by the time we were 6 or 7 years old.
If you cant stand the heat . . . .
43 Posted 10/08/2008 at 08:35:47
It’s also interesting to see that Mr Canon claims he was around when we applied for planning permission on Stanley Park but were refused. This is something that some posters on here claim to know 100% did not happen and were very quick to jump on here and say so, when any other poster dare raise the subject.
I know find it vey interesting that none of these particular posters have yet posted on this thread to dispute Mr Canons claims, maybe its early days yet.
44 Posted 10/08/2008 at 09:03:15
It is hypocrisy in the extreme to follow this by speaking of ?simple falsehoods that seem to have become the stock-in-trade of one side of the debate on the ground move?.
I?m afraid that your reputation goes before you. You will doubtless recall Brian Reade?s article ?A Sage Who Doesn?t Know His Onions?. This, incidentally, is a Liverpool supporter who talks far more sense about our club in one article than you have ever done. One need only look at his article on Kenwright yesterday to see this.
Reade compares your list of predictions with what actually happened. I wonder how you get the work frankly.
45 Posted 10/08/2008 at 09:47:09
He said over the past couple of years Moyes has had up to £15m to spend on summer transfers.
"I think in a new stadium you could expect that to be £30m to £35m," he added."
No evidence, statistics, business plan or proof of any kind.
It?s all guess work and conjecture Tom!
46 Posted 10/08/2008 at 09:15:05
Could you please elaborate on your claim that EFC first applied and were refused planning permission to build on Stanley Park? I have been watching the Blues for 55 years. I breathe and sleep my beloved club and never have I seen EFC apply to build on Stanley Park. I must admit I had a few "Lost Weekends" in the Swinging Sixties and I might have missed it. But I don?t think so.
Also, your claim about LCC refusing EFC planning permission for a retail development at Goodison Park. Once again, I have no recollection of this happening.
The Kings Dock fiasco is purely down to BK. The LCC gave EFC preferred bidder status and had to provide £30 million by a certain deadline, EFC missed several deadlines to prove they could come up with money and reluctantly preferred bidder status was withdrawn. To this day, EFC have never isued any sort of statement why they couldn?t go ahead with scheme. Kenwright should have fallen on his sword then.
Also, Tom, you take great pride in the fact that you are a Professor of Economics and Business Studies and you also act as an advisor to the EFC board. Isn?t it a coincidence that, while you have been "advising" EFC, the club have been getting stick from all and sundry about the lack of business acumen at the club regarding marketing and the lack of any business strategy???
In ending, Tom, I still think you are a poodle of Kenwright.
47 Posted 10/08/2008 at 09:42:25
Cannon writes: "being rehoused in Kirkby by Liverpool City Council in the late 1950s ? when our estate was very firmly in Liverpool." Well, Tom, I?m sorry, but that simply is not true. Kirkby?s estates were all within the boundaries and under the jurisdiction of the local UDC NOT Liverpool. The housing stock - as in places like Huyton and Halewood - were controlled by Liverpool Corpy, but Kirkby fell outside Liverpool?s boundaries.
I just can?t believe Cannon?s lack of knowledge in matters of this nature which, as I say, is a microcosm of the paucity of analysis in the rest of his claims on the ground move subject.
48 Posted 10/08/2008 at 09:08:22
Because of the exclusivity, Wyness/ Tesco, put their ear muffs and blinkers on and never listened to people's concerns, ie how do they get to the ground? Why?
Now you're critising the people who were refused meaningful discussions from day one. Why?
49 Posted 10/08/2008 at 10:11:14
sorry to hear about the personal abuse. Its never nice, especially when coming from your own "family" (i.e. other Evertonians).
The whole Kirkby debate have been very divisive for this family. I?m sure we all accept that we need a new stadium, the issue that I and most others who object, is the location of this stadium.
Kirkby was originally sold as a world class stadium, and despite that claim proving to be being somewhat exaggerated, most of us who live in Liverpool were immediately concerned about the location, not just because of the boundary issue (although this would immediately reduce not, as suggested, increase our catchment area), but because of the transport links to and from Kirkby.
The Kirkby solution was never the BEST option for the club, it was at best a short-sighted solution for the club.
If we need to move let's just make sure we have the transport solution in place first. No-one disputes that a move to closer to the city centre would cost more, but we also know that we?d fill it easier too, and just as importantly fill the corporate hospitality too.
The cost of the debt would be bigger, but the revenues would also be bigger, even for the same capacity of stadium because people could more easily get there, and if we could get concert income also then that would increase income even further.
The danger of moving to kirkby would be that we would have the additional cost of debt, but still have average revenues based on 35,000, so reducing, not increasing available transfer fees.
Kirkby is dead (or should be now), so its time we looked towards other and better options for the club.
I doubt Walton Hall Park is the answer (even though this is where I grew up) as it has similar planning issues as Kirkby, but the Loop site must be reviewed in more depth and other options also reviewed, but whatever option is chosen the transport plan and the club?s heritage and traditional support base must be a high factor in the decision, not short-term desperate funding solutions.
50 Posted 10/08/2008 at 10:05:39
You dont seem to get it at all do you ? this would be the death knell for Everton as we know it ......... you’d get the ’One City-One Club’ jibes rammed down your throat every way you turned.
I’d rather put 4 sweaters on the ground as goalposts on any field in LIVERPOOL than move out of the City.
51 Posted 10/08/2008 at 10:47:37
52 Posted 10/08/2008 at 10:31:22
53 Posted 10/08/2008 at 11:32:50
However, I don?t think you have done yourself any justice with your example of propaganda. You state that the Kirkby population of 40,000 is misleading and we should be considering Knowsley?s population (150,000). The point about the size of the Kirkby population is that it is directly relevant to the transport infrastructure that exists around the new ground. Given that the majority of home supporters would be reliant on public transport for at least part of their journey (2 mile proposed parking restrictions etc), then it does have a relevance. At Goodison, there are more trains,buses and you can walk to the city centre ? a huge advantage.
Furthermore, I listened to your statements on Radio Merseyside and it certainly sounded to me that you were ?allocating? the blame towards the KEIOC brigade.
When I read something written by you that looks like it may be based on some sort of reality, then that will be the day that I start taking you seriously. At the moment, all I see is a profit figure that looks like it has been dragged out the air and you stating facts (55,000 capacity) which are obviously incorrect ? it makes me wonder about all the other figures.
54 Posted 10/08/2008 at 11:29:39
"...threats and simple falsehoods that seem to have become the stock-in-trade of one side of the debate".
Falsehoods from ONE side of the debate?
So just to be clear - those FOR the move, (supporters, the board, THE ECHO) have not been guilty of insults and/or falsehoods.
Can I point out to ANYONE who just breezed past this sentence, without being outraged, Cannon, in his own way, just called you a dumb prick who?ll buy into ANY SHITE.
For me, this is Cannon saying "Anyone who doesn?t buy into my professorial genius is a dolt".
There have been a lot of whines on this site about ?insults? yet when a ?professor? blatantly insults the intelligence of a great number of Evertonians, no problem.
It seems you can call people knobheads... as long as you don?t actually use the word.
55 Posted 10/08/2008 at 12:19:22
"Having been around when Everton first sought ? and were refused planning permission ? for a new stadium in Stanley Park ? unlike quess who?"
Does anyone know if this is true or not. There seems to be dozens of stories floating around about this.
56 Posted 10/08/2008 at 12:22:29
Just a shame the vocal minority of Evertonians aren’t able to see past the end of their noses.
57 Posted 10/08/2008 at 12:05:56
There is no excuse for abuse towards anybody involved in this debate. I listened to your comments and I heared a lot of the arguments made by Keith Wyness before the debate last year. Using your undoubted knowledge of the issues could you please tell us all have you any evidence to suggest that Everton FC will be able to fill the stadium and generate the extra £10 Million in revenue that you talk about. Is there any evidence to suggest that demand for corporate hospitality would be weaker at an edge-of-town location as opposed to an inner city one.
What are your thoughts with regards to the transport plan, especially in relation to the walking distances from proposed car parking sites and, most worrying of all for the non-driver, the trains heading in one direction compared to the three directions at Kirkdale and the further one at Sandhills?
I hope you are able to respond as Tom Cannon and not as part of the strategic group who have in the past used stock answers to questions which have seemed dismisive of our concerns, and therefore created the rift between this large group of supporters and the club.
58 Posted 10/08/2008 at 12:30:11
There are regular posters on here who claim this is a myth and those who believe it but cannot prove it.
About a month or two ago a poster who dared mention this subject was lambasted for it, even though he was only referring to it coming up in an interview he heard on the radio. I heard that same interview on Radio City and it was made by a so called expert on sporting stadia, he didn’t say how he knew this, he just casually dropped it into conversation and pissed St John off no end.
Unless someone at LCC will come out and publicly comment on Stanley Park we will never know. You will have to decide who to believe, people such as Prof Canon or people who post claiming to be in the know.
I suppose it doesn’t really matter anyway because we will always play second fiddle to LFC, even when the top man at LCC is an Evertonian !!
59 Posted 10/08/2008 at 12:42:06
Planning applications are available on request to the general public. Maybe to clear this up once and for all, you should contact LCC planning department and ask them to supply you with the documents in question.
Or conversly, you could save yourself the time and trouble because they simply do not exist.
Which begs the question; is Tom Cannon deliberatley attempting to shift any blame for two failed stadiums from the chairman and board of EFC and onto the toes of LCC
or is the professor living in a badly informed fantasy land.
My view is that Tom Cannon’s predictable and transparent portrayal of Bill Kenwright as the two time victim of the LCC ’bogey men’ is nothing more than an attempt to perpetuate a myth that all too many Evertonians have been and still are willing to buy into.
60 Posted 10/08/2008 at 12:50:18
How has Tom been accurate? If you bother to read Lyndon Lloyd?s first piece, you will know that he points out a number of blatant inaccuracies from Prof Cannon - most of which he has ignored in the above article.
Also, the vocal minority you talk of, I?m guessing you mean the ?vote? from last year. You certainly cannot mean this website and forum. It?s clear that a sizeable number of people now regret voting yes. I am still to meet one person who regrets voting no.
Even though there?s no need for one, a recount would show an entirely different result.
61 Posted 10/08/2008 at 12:56:49
Just a gob for the board. Doesn’t even know what hes talking about in terms of a lot to do with the Kirkby Stadium.
Seeing as though there are no official records on Everton and Stanley Park I will pretty much take anything as you say as either lies or hear say!
You only pop up when the clowns on the board need some spin, the way you make stuff up and get figures wrong then you are probaly a perfect board member of our patheticly run club!
62 Posted 10/08/2008 at 13:23:07
You?ve misread my original post. I stated that Liverpool Corporation had control over housing stock in Kirkby (as in Huyton and Halewood). My point was that this still does not mean - as per Tom Cannon?s claim - that the estate he lived on in Kirkby ?was firmly in Liverpool?. It wasn?t. It was within the boundary of Kirkby Urban District Council (which answered to Lancashire County Council, not Liverpool) until 1974 and the setting up of Knowsley MBC.
As I say, a small point maybe, but it serves to demonstrate Cannon?s general failure to put the facts on the table.
63 Posted 10/08/2008 at 14:04:46
In 1947 Liverpool City council purchased land in Kirkby from Earl of Sefton for housing development. In 1949 both Lancashire and Liverpool councils met to discuss Kirkby Newtwon. 1958 Kirkby CC was created. In 1974 Kirkby became part of the new Knowsley MBC. Yes I got this from the Knowsley.gov website. It doesn’t say that Kirkby has ever been part of Liverpool but it does prove that LCC once owned housing land in Kirkby.
64 Posted 10/08/2008 at 14:30:47
You end your post by stating:
?We are clearly in a new situation ? one in which I for one hope is judged on the basis of the full truth and not half truths.?
It?s very hard to respect that when, on the very same day you said it, the Liverpool Echo carried a report of an interview conducted with yourself, in which you repeat the spurious statistics and questionable assertions for which you were so lambasted following your Radio Merseyside interview earlier in the week.
It was also very conspicuous that your post on Toffeeweb is largely free of those accusations.
So, in other words, over the course of five days you?ve freely declared some very dubious viewpoints on Radio Merseyside and then repeated them in the Liverpool Echo but judiciously chose to avoid them on Toffeeweb.
You choose your audiences well.
But there?s the damage, you see, and that?s why many of your fellow Evertonians are so frustrated by you. For you chose two of the biggest local media channels to make some flawed pronouncements to an audience of many thousands; but then opt for a (relatively) conservative line when addressing a fans? site which has nowhere near the reach of Radio Merseyside or the Liverpool Echo.
Yet, while you?re on Toffeeweb, you announce your hope to see that the ?new situation? we are in is served by the ?full truth? and ?not half truths? but several paragraphs later you go on to denounce Lyndon Lloyd?s piece ?A Blessing in Disguise? as propaganda.
Can you not see the inherent inconsistency here?
Propaganda, I would contend, was the club?s voting literature last summer - complete with Messrs Moyes, Cahill, Carsley (gone), Johnson (gone) and Stubbs (gone) wheeled out to patronise the fans - which was long on rhetoric and short on substance (a textbook definition of propaganda?); or the open letter from Keith Wyness halfway through the voting procedure; or the attendant spin in the local media; or the subsequent club video with Alan Stubbs superimposed over CGI depictions of the new stadium.
And yes, I would readily concede that propaganda was also the KEIOC DVD episode which was an own-goal that could have cost them a few thousand wavering voters (and when you consider that a swing of less than 2,500 fans clinched the ?Yes? vote for the club that?s quite significant).
About the only episode last summer that I couldn?t categorise as propaganda was Sir Terry Leahy?s (very late) open letter to fans (so conspicuously professional in comparison to Keith Wyness? upper sixth effort) which I?m sure was the clinching factor in achieving the ?Yes? vote.
Again, though, if you consider just how close the swing factor was in the vote result - think the Paddock basically - just imagine what the result would have been had the club not resorted to the naked propaganda exercises that it undertook?
I didn?t hear you complaining then.
Or just imagine what the result would have been had the truths and realities of Destination Kirkby, as related in Lyndon Lloyd?s piece (and so noticeably unchallenged by you), been exposed pre-vote?
That?s why I find it incredulous that you so quickly dismissed Lyndon?s piece - so absolutely grounded in fact - as mere propaganda in virtually the same breath that you call for a new era unclouded by half truths.
If Lyndon?s piece was propaganda, Professor Cannon, then why not employ your intellectual rigour to deconstruct it, point by point, and prove the case?
I suggest you won?t be able to because Lyndon?s piece was based on fact.
Propaganda, though, was most certainly what you related to Neil Hodgson of the Liverpool Echo for the piece that was published yesterday; on the very day you make a plea here on Toffeeweb for the cessation of ?half truths?.
For you to cite the loss of potential revenue from ?pop concerts? at Kirkby was just staggering.
Either you have obviously not kept up-to-date with the planning realities of the Kirkby project (in which case how arrogant of you to speak as a voice of authority to two of the leading local media channels over the last few days); or you were indeed well aware of the constraints but still mischievously ignored them in favour of a quickly aired soundbite.
There can be no other conclusion. And I?m not sure which of those is the bigger indictment.
Finally, it is noticeable that you have repeated the same vein of rhetoric so recently espoused by Peter Kilfoyle regarding the failure of the Everton-King?s Dock project.
This is revisionism.
Unless every Evertonian - and indeed the local media - has been misled these last five years, I was under the impression that the fault for Everton failing to secure the King?s Dock (and therefore wasting almost four years of the club?s valuable time) was solely due to the fact that it couldn?t stump up the cash.
Yes or no? Please tell us.
If yourself and Peter Kilfoyle are now to be believed, it would seem the blame lies elsewhere? At the doors of Liverpool City Council. Really?
It is very strange, then, that these recent noises to that effect (sophistry, if you ask me) have only come to the fore some five years after the demise of that project; and it?s equally curious that the club, at the time, in summer 2003, didn?t vehemently complain about Liverpool City Council?s (LCC) project-blocking actions.
The fact that EFC didn?t protest at the time bears a striking similarity to the lack of complaint issued by the club regarding the perceived double standards concerning planning permission on Stanley Park to which you have alluded.
You are right to claim that there were, indeed, contradictory noises emanating from LCC towards EFC and LFC concerning the Stanley Park issue; the reality, though, is not quite as clear-cut as you have made out. And I think you know it.
The subject of the council?s double standards concerning Stanley Park has been explored and related at length in two different article-and-thread episodes on Toffeeweb in the last year.
I?d urge you to read those articles and threads and if you can correct me (in particular) - or you?re privy to more detailed information - then I stand to be corrected and would certainly welcome clarification; because I would love to know exactly what went on in communications (whatever the media employed) between all the following parties between January 1st and May 31st 2000: David Henshaw, Mike Storey, Rick Parry and Bill Kenwright.
As things stand, though, I would suggest that Bill Kenwright?s silence concerning the double standards of LCC regarding Stanley Park has been deafening these last five years.
And I think you know the reasons why he has chosen to keep his own counsel concerning the events - and the sequence of them - during early 2000.
Similarly, I would suggest that Bill Kenwright?s silence (and definitely Paul Gregg?s) concerning LCC?s recently alleged scuppering of the King?s Dock project has been equally deafening.
And I think, again, you know the reasons why Bill Kenwright (and by implication Paul Gregg) has chosen to keep his own counsel concerning the events during summer 2003 when the plug was finally pulled: chiefly because Everton FC had no-one but itself to blame for the demise of the King?s Dock project.
Professor Cannon, you ask for a new era which is based on truth and facts.
Might I suggest that - given your greater exposure to the media - you take the lead and set us all an example to follow.
65 Posted 10/08/2008 at 14:22:31
" DONT PANIC; TRUST IN MOYES... by the way Blue Bill told me tonight one signing tonight/tomorrow we will like, three next week. Who knows... what I do know is I took my son and his cousin tonight to the match, they met Kenwright, Moyes, Cahill, Arteta, Yakubu, Snods and the fit girl from Setanta. Apart from the last one, how many other clubs make the players and manager available that much? Yeah, we all have gripes and moans but we are blues and I feel even if there are no signings we will be okay... Top 8 without ? top 5 with good signings. ..COYB "
I think this was what David Moyes alluded to with his "People's Club" quote. If we?d have been forced to go to Kirkby, this would have been taken from us, a tradition and history, People's Club, School of Science, NSNO... The last thing we need is a self-proclaimed professor attacking the principles of a group of Evertonians who wish to uphold that tradition by means of scaremongering and inaccurate "facts".
66 Posted 10/08/2008 at 14:52:35
67 Posted 10/08/2008 at 15:04:47
1. A new stadium within the City boundaries.
3. Redevelop GP
4. Move to Anfield, once the LFC vacate
Personally I favor option 4. It will be cheap, we have history there and it only needs a lick of paint.
As for the rest of Mr Cannons ramblings - I see nothing remotely profound in them. I?m glad that the Kirkby plan (?) has been called in - it may well show it for the folly that it really was.
68 Posted 10/08/2008 at 15:09:35
ps: We need you to have just one unique identity on here... so Jem Birtles it is, Okay?
69 Posted 10/08/2008 at 15:09:29
One quick thing - is there a recording of Mr. Cannon’s interview on Radio Merseyside available anywhere?
70 Posted 10/08/2008 at 15:10:20
71 Posted 10/08/2008 at 15:42:24
72 Posted 10/08/2008 at 15:42:29
I find it pathetic that you come on here whining about threats and abuse. If you had any degree of self-awareness you might realise that many Evertonians are angry and disgusted with the way you pop up in the media to lecture the rest of us.
You accuse one side, but say nothing of the way we have been treated by the club. Where’s the balance or is it all black and white in your world?
You refer to fellow fans as ’Miss Marples’. Is that not an insult? These are passionate people trying to get some truth out of the club for once. I salute their efforts and they have every right to challenge your assertions. Maybe if you had stated your self-interest (working for Knowsley, special adviser to EFC) when making comments about KEIOC people would have more respect for you. I lost it a long time ago.
73 Posted 10/08/2008 at 16:14:38
Or, when you are asked to spout your spin, for the club again, through the local media, why don?t you try and state facts that are true?
You never know, you may actually regain back a fragment of respect from your fellow Evertonians.
74 Posted 10/08/2008 at 16:51:49
75 Posted 10/08/2008 at 17:37:01
76 Posted 10/08/2008 at 18:51:55
I always wanted to see the face behind the name !! (only kidding).
Personally I think the "myth" of us applying for Stanley Park is born out of the frustration for the lack of support we receive from LCC. OK its agreed it’s up to the club to sort out a new home and they believed they had with DK. However if that new home has to be within the City then a helping hand to locate a suitable location from LCC would not be too much to ask, but maybe the few hundred million towards the building costs would.
David, not sure if you’re comments about the Kings Dock stadium are tongue in cheek, however if they’re not I fully agree with them. I may sound like a bitter blue but I have a couple of conspiracy theories about Kings Dock which are best summed with the question, Do you think we would be allowed to have anything better in the City than LFC?
77 Posted 10/08/2008 at 15:53:01
Merseyside ought to give equal time to those who challenge the "experts figures."
78 Posted 10/08/2008 at 18:58:55
Warren Bradley is know to be keen to talk and someone on his/the council's or the club's behalf has made contact with a fella called Albert Gubay, who owns a number of derelict sites around Edge Lane.
Mr Gubay is apparently keen to talk as the proposal could mark a softening of relations between the council and Mr Gubay, after attempts to force him to improve some of the land he owns in the city.
Edge Lane was apparenlty talked about with the club a number of years ago, before the Kings Dock was put on the table, but nothing came of it.
Warren Bradley is siad to be confident that he could attract Everton to the possiblity of a ground move to Edge Lane as the development could recieve funding/grants because of the current redevelopment programme at Edge Lane & the new thinking New Kensington area development in and around Edge Lane.
I don't know how much is 100% true but the lad isn?t a lad I know to bullshit, personally I think the prospect of an Edge Lane stadium is an excting opportunity - it will provide a chance to regenerate one of Liverpool's poorest areas. The site has good transport links, good links to town, is easily accessible from a number of local areas (Kenny, Wavertree, Old Swan, Edge Hill, Town, Broadgreen), the motorway into Liverpool, a number of roads (Queens Drive, Prescot Rd etc.) and is serviced by good bus links and 2 train stations (Edge Hill, Waveratree Tech).
What do people think? What chance do we reckon that this could become a possiblity?
79 Posted 10/08/2008 at 19:17:07
As for the "attack" on the integrity and committment of our MP, Peter Kilfoyle, he may well have chosen us in Walton over the perks of power. How he manages to represent us by killing County Road for the chance of some jobs in Kirkby defeats me.
80 Posted 10/08/2008 at 21:10:41
Your credibility has been blown out of the water, so many inaccuracies in your piece. How can you expect people to take you seriously, Tesco, EFC, or anyother business you may wish to represent in the future. Unless your sole business function is PR!! And that, if the piece I just read was written by you, sorry, suggest you retire gracefully.
81 Posted 10/08/2008 at 23:32:26
Your input and Lyndon’s previous thread completely sink Professor Cannon’s misplaced and revisionist-based stance without trace.
Would be interested to hear his response, with a modicum of substance and without the rhetoric this time.
82 Posted 10/08/2008 at 23:54:16
So a highly respected man shoots down many of the half truths and propoganda and is prepared to put his head above the parapet with a possibility of losing his reputation and you still can?t see the wood from the trees.... it?s all down to money!... the money our club will save with DK.
With regards to his 55,000 capacity.... isn?t 57,000 eventually planned with a ?Variation?.
Oh, and the ability to stage pop concerts..... this can be applied to be varied at any time after plans are passed, it is not out of the question.
So, sorry, I think it blows much out of Lyndon's water...... so to speak.
83 Posted 11/08/2008 at 01:22:53
Knowsley are under NO obligation to revise their planning permission and that states categorically that the capacity limit is set at 50k, and that there will be no concerts. There have not been assurances sought to this effect either which would be prudent if not essential if that is what you promised everyone in the first place. Their own transport consultants have said that no transport strategy brief has been set for a higher capacity...... For good reason: They haven’t been able to demonstrate viability at the lower capacity, hence the transport plan’s third revision to date. If you or the Prof can’t show me anything in black and white to the contrary I’d suggest Cannon’s rhetoric responds to none of Lyndon’s or Greg’s multiple assertions nevermind blowing any of them out of the water. As far as "57,000 and variations"..... I’m really not sure what you’re on about.
84 Posted 11/08/2008 at 07:54:08
This is what Neil Hodgson, of the Liverpool Echo, reported just 48 hours ago (the very same day that Professor Cannon was making a plea for the cessation of "half truths"):
"Kirkby-born Prof Cannon said: ’Everton’s revenue stream will be down by £10m a year just in gate revenues by staying at Goodison.
’Then there are all the other bits of income from a new stadium like conferences to pop concerts which is probably another £5m and means that transfer income until we get a new stadium, wherever that is, is down by up to £15m a year’."
85 Posted 11/08/2008 at 08:56:38
Tell a lie often and it becomes the truth.
The population issue, one of my main concerns. along with transport turns out to be 150,000 not t he 40,000 that is always quoted.
I have nothing but hatred for the luddites of KEIOC who for some reason think that they know better than those who feely voted for Destination Kirkby.
While I regard Toffeeweb as an anti Everton mouth piece - I have to congratulate them giving Tom Cannon a chance to write an excellent article.
its a shame that some responses are not bothered that luddites are prepared to issue death threats to get their views across.
86 Posted 11/08/2008 at 09:28:07
87 Posted 11/08/2008 at 09:34:16
88 Posted 11/08/2008 at 09:40:43
Follow Greg?s link, then try this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Borough_of_Knowsley and compare the maps.
The 40,000 figure is wrong...it should be 44,000 (I,m sure that makes a massive difference!). It is however, the relevent figure, because the other 110,000 are spread out across all of Knowsley.
The relevence is directly linked to your other stated "main concern", transport. The transport infrastructure of Kirkby as a whole is currently servicing an entire town (not a single location within that town) of 40,000 people. If Destination Kirkby went ahead, it would have to then support a single location containing a 50,000 seater stadium, one of the largest Tesco stores in the country and 50 other shops...in addition to the current town centre.
If you want to talk about propaganda, you seem to be linking KEIOC with making death threats: "...the luddites of KEIOC..." and "...luddites are prepared to issue death threats...". I?m aware that Professor Cannon and others have received some totally unwarranted abuse, although as far as I can see, none of it hasn?t come from KEIOC. The ground move debate has certainly been unneccessarily bitter and aggressive between blues who, at the end of the day, just have different opinions about the best way forward for the club.
However, I?ve obviously missed the death threats which have been issued against Professor Cannon or anyone else. Perhaps you could point me towards them? At the same time, perhaps you could clarify that you were not attempting to imply that KEIOC themselves had issued any such threats?
89 Posted 11/08/2008 at 10:02:00
Your ignorance and "hatred" is astounding, get a grip. This is a classic case of Cannon not practicing what he preaches. Knowsley is a by-product not a unified entity. Its a string of overflow housing estates that bare little or no relation nor connection to each other. Stating a population of 150,000 when the vast majority are no more related to Kirkby than say Speke/Garston or even Birkenhead is laughable. People of Huyton and Halewood do their shopping locally and in Liverpool city centre which they have far superior transport links to. As far as abuse is concerned, when I first released my drawings for a redeveloped GP I received quite a few threats of violence from similarly ignorant sources. Check out ALL Everton forums not just TW, I think you will find that the tide of opinion regarding DK turned a long time ago mainly because people have long since realised who was telling the lies.
90 Posted 11/08/2008 at 10:03:40
"tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth "
So where did you hear about the "DEATH theats" ?
a "drama queen" response
Tom Cannons inaccurate claims have been systematically dismantled here.
Think He’ll try to defend them ? dont hold your breath
As for feeling hatred towards fellow Evertonians, well you may well feel anger towards them, but hatred ? think your being over dramatic again
91 Posted 11/08/2008 at 10:30:02
Yet I can walk to the end of the my road and I?m in a small town with a population of 40,000 and no transport infrastructure.
Professor Tom Cannon might talk a lot of shite and have an agenda. But he?s not the only one.
92 Posted 11/08/2008 at 11:02:36
The answers are quite obvious. Any peripheral site will always be "end-of-the-line" in terms of transport capacity. ie Buses and trains will only be useable in one direction, as opposed to in both at more central locations which benefit by increased number of services and traffic lanes due to convergence towards the centre. At Walton, GP is approached by several main arterial routes and the inner ring road with for instance over 20 trains per hr at Sandhills connecting with ALL Northern line merseyrail stations compared to just 4 per hour at Kirkby which only connects directly with Kirkby line stations. In terms of Buses, there are next to no direct services from the majority of Liverpool districts to Kirkby, and NONE at all from the Wirral where over 1/3rd of our support is based. Kirkby can handle just over 4,000 passengers per hr, the city centre over 100,000. There’s the difference, and it will never change for a fortnightly-event venue nor a shopping complex entirely dependent on car use. There are no extra bus services for the Speke retail park, and it is invariably grid-locked!! The transport plan has been revised a few times already and still does not work..... square peg, round hole.
93 Posted 11/08/2008 at 11:39:57
I?ve yet to see anything like 4000 people using Kirkdale train station in all my years as an Evertonian. And Kirkby is only three stops from there (5 minutes). Or 15 minutes From Liverpol city centre.
94 Posted 11/08/2008 at 11:53:50
I live in Woolton, and worked in Kirkby for years on major transport projects such as Merseytram, aswell as Manchester’s, Sheffield’s and Nottingham’s trams. In otherwords I do know a little bit about transport and the infrastructure involved. Even living over 10 miles away I have a direct bus route to Walton which I use for almost every game. Liverpool has the lowest car ownership in the country..... only 38% of families have a car. Therefore suffice to say that plenty do use public transport. If you went to Kirkdale or sandhills for any match you would see this. Single track, single-platform Kirkby station could not handle similar numbers. Similarly on the buses, there is no comparison at Kirkby, Huyton, Halewood, Speke or any peripheral location. Also, mainline station Lime street is only 2 miles away, as is the whole Wirral line network. No football stadium should be car-dependent since cars alone cannot shift the numbers required as quick as mass public transit even if we all had access to a car which we don’t. There are only 2 dual carriageways feeding Kirkby from the main connurbation..... just 4 lanes, some of which already at saturation. Walton has dozens from all directions and the city-centre loop many more besides. Out of town was tried in the US and has died precisely because of transport logistics!!
95 Posted 11/08/2008 at 12:42:51
I notice that you match my Goebbels comment with death threats. Bit ingenuous as I was talking about the general No to Kirkby Campaign waged by Toffeeweb in particular and Keioc in general.
Prof Cannon talks about threats, and Kieth Wyness has already confirmed that he has received death threats - or are sky lying when they reported it earlier this year?
Tom. I?d rather be ignorant than a luddite, anti everything and pro nothing.
A narrow agenda which is prepared to accept anything so long its within the political boundary of the city of liverpool. To me is ludditism of the highest order.
I realise that you are associated with Keioc and I honestly have a lot of respect for your views, but to my mind Keioc as a body have through their tactics dragged Everton?s name through the mud.
Hatred for what they have done is the softest term I could use. THis minority group who claim to speak for the majority are prepared to ignore legitimte votes and engage in questionable tactics to win its argument such as he famed Man Utd video
I?d rather be a kopite than be associated with that lot, and I?d rather top myself than become a kopite.
96 Posted 11/08/2008 at 13:05:16
Out of town is not progress. Most new major stadia are located downtown precisely for that reason. It was tried in the home of auto-culture and for the most part failed, so your luddite accusation is both misplaced and plainly inaccurate. Show me where KEIOC were responsible for the video. Then you can let me know how ANYTHING else they have done compares to the littany of falsehoods that they put their name to regarding DK. Repeated lies at the behest of Tesco..... or isn’t this a "questionable tactic" in your opinion. KEIOC members are all dedicated blues....... home and away fans for decades, and some are shareholders. I can tell that you didn’t attend the last AGM, you would have been left in little doubt as to what the real majority held view was there. The EGM hasn’t come about for no reason and will be the same. BTW, No shareholders have counter-campaigned in support of DK!!!
97 Posted 11/08/2008 at 13:07:42
Can you tell me who has a "narrow agenda which is prepared to accept anything so long its within the political boundary of the city of liverpool"?
I know some of the KEIOC lads. Some of them have been involved in previous fans/campaign groups. Some of which have tried to put pressure on the board over the last 10-15 years to do something about upgrading Goodison or finding a suitable new home. I don?t know any Evertonian who thinks Goodison as it is is good enough for Everton going forward, or who would "accept anything so long its within" the city. And certainly not these guys who have got off their arses, spent their own time and money and worked hard for no reward.
Apart from going to a match (if you even do that), what have you done today/this week/month/year/decade to benefit Everton Football Club? What sacrifices have you made?
If the answer is "not a lot", you have no right to insult those who have.
If the answer is "loads", you?ll know what it has cost these lads, what they?ve put in and the thanks they will get from ordinary Evertonians.
Either way, you have the right to disagree and argue your point, but you do not have the right to throw abuse or insults at them.
They?ve done what they have because they care about Everton deeply enough to do so and feel a responsibility towards the club and their fellow fans...that includes you.
98 Posted 11/08/2008 at 14:41:41
Kirkby actually has 4 major roads out of Kirkby, one of them does become single road for about half a mile. Moorgate Rd is dual carriageway and leads to the East Lancs, Coopers Lane a continuation of County Rd is dual carriageway and also leads to the East Lancs, both of these roads also serve the M57. Valley Rd is dual carriageway and leads to the M57 and by using the M57 one can join the East Lancs in either directioin. Valley Road is also a main route from Kirkby to Walton and is used quite heavily for current matchday traffic. County Rd runs up to Maghull and the M58 but as mentioned earlier becomes single lane traffic in the direction of Maghull at the town centre. I’m not disagreeing with your thoughts, however I think you do the routes in and out of Kirkby an injustice. Also from memory there is only one small stretch of single track railway line between Kirkby and the City centre which lies between Kirkby and Fazakerley stations. Do you not think this could have easily been adjusted?
99 Posted 11/08/2008 at 15:12:11
100 Posted 11/08/2008 at 15:10:11
As for Mr Cannon, I stopped listening to him the day he picked a comedy pink all ladies taxi firm endorsed by Kerry Katona ahead of my company to win a Business award, two months later the ladies went bust.
101 Posted 11/08/2008 at 15:22:43
But he got it right that Manchester United wouldn’t win anything once the Glazers took over :0) Or did I imagine their Premiership title and Champions League win !!
102 Posted 11/08/2008 at 14:47:08
Tom Cannon claimed he had to respond to the "falsehoods that seem to have become the stock-in-trade to one side of the debate"
The "falsehoods" in his ensuing article have been stripped bare, cruelly exposed at times - see Colin Fitzpatrick post
Toms article was ill advised and he wont respond,he will now know, he cannot argue with irrefutable facts - and be of no doubt, he?ll know the facts by now
I recently challeged a guy, who regularly posts and was claiming KEIOC have fed us all a pack of lies, I asked him to list them, Guess what he didnt respond (still waiting by the way Alan)
He couldnt respond because he was making it up
Tom Hughes has today issued you with a clear challenge, show us were KEIOC were responsible for the video, we?re still waiting
Do you see a pattern developing here ?
Toms Cannons correct,
Falsehoods are the stock-in-trade of one half of the debate, but its becoming increasingly clear that its not the half he thought it was
Your hatred is born out of ignorance, learn the facts and it will vanish
103 Posted 11/08/2008 at 15:32:45
I?m yet to see huge numbers coming out of Kirkdale station and the soccerbus goes past the pub where i drink at the match.It?s usually half empty.
None of that really matters now though.Unless of course Knowsley Council come up with another site.
104 Posted 11/08/2008 at 15:23:30
I take your point about lanes within Kirkby, I could have included Knowsley lane and Dunnings Bridge via M57 I suppose, but generally speaking there is only the East Lancs and Valley Rd that actually pierce the M57 from central Liverpool into Kirkby and more particularly into the area where the stadium is proposed. The real problem is that the vast majority will be travelling in the same direction before and after. Therefore if you use these roads on matchdays now and find them congested imagine it with all the Wirral and central/South Liverpool traffic too, not to mention those that will be forced off public transport due to the much reduced services for Kirkby. Count the number of traffic lanes that radiate from walton in all directions to all parts of Liverpool and central transport hubs in the city-centre. No edge of city site can match it. The transport consultants have done their sums and have found that they cannot get the throughput to satisfy access and particularly egress criteria, hence the park and ride scheme which they also cannot make work. Like I said I worked in Kirkby for years and have seen the traffic delays on Moorgate caused by a few hundred industrial estate workers let alone 10,000+ cars, and the same on the East lancs. By comparison GP has never had nor needed such to satisfy all criteria. I remember when Kirkby was first mooted, when there was talk of all sorts of transport projects, there were even suggestions of a new station closer to the site etc. None of this is going to happen, I also believe that two track layout would also require a new railway bridge across the motorway. Railway infrastructure is prohibitively expensive, and I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere in planning applications nor future projections. Regardless, Kirkby station is nothing like capable of handling the levels of use experienced at both sandhills and Kirkdale post match, and the numbers of trains cannot be increased due to convergence at Sandhills limiting the Kirkby line’s capacity..... In otherwords there is no provision in Merseyside’s UDP to turn the city region into a twin focal point transport system...... certainly not for the sake of a small housing estate and a fortnightly sports venue.
105 Posted 11/08/2008 at 16:25:21
I’d be interested to know what pub that is seeing as I can only remember 2 on the normal bus route from sandhills (I may have missed 1 I suppose) One of which I drink in quite regularly so I may know your face. I don’t always get the train, but when I have Sandhills has been packed and there is usually a queue of buses (not one bus) to take people away as the trains arrive approx every 2 mins. Before soccerbus I just got off at Kirkdale, and again every train practically emptied at this station. This service takes thousands of cars off the road on matchdays, and again can’t be replicated at Kirkby.
106 Posted 11/08/2008 at 16:38:49
I will remind you once again that we have published a wide range of views on DK and on all matters Everton ? as long as they do not cross the line of abuse. You just did. KEIOC is a one-issue entity; ToffeeWeb promotes the discussion of, and dissemination of information about, ALL Everton issues from fans with views across the full spectrum. People like you who cannot recognize that and choose instead to abuse this forum forfeit the privilege it provides.
107 Posted 11/08/2008 at 20:44:26
108 Posted 11/08/2008 at 20:46:46
Thanks for your reply, whilst what you say does make sense (you obviously know your onions), to a layman like myself I still can’t picture anything in my mind why Kirkby would be any worse than GP, in terms of crowd and traffic dispersal. The only thing I would disagree with is Moorgate Road, I work on Moorgate Road and apart from when the alterations were made to the junction with the East lancs a couple years ago, the road handles industrial traffic very well, However I appreciate that football traffic is very much different. Whilst GP probably has the best crowd disperal rate in the country there is a mile or so walk from the ground, if this was applied to Kirkby that mile or so walk would take you to any of the 4 or so roads I mentioned previously. I don’t know if this would have worked I am only thinking aloud. Also I agree with the need for an extra bridge over the motorway. However from memory I believe they were planning to extend Kirkby platform under the bridge on Glovers Brow onto the wigan line, perhaps this could have worked with a queuing system at Fazakerley.
Whilst I have been a pro Kirkby poster on here I have always stressed that I wanted us to stay in the City as first choice, however some (not all) of the negativity towards Kirkby really got up my nose at times.
I am also concerned at some of the sites being rumoured about in posts and think would any of them be any better, would the stadium build be any better just because the location is in the City? Would it still be the same design? The DK design was a big problem for some people
Also do people think that DK is really over? If we have to wait 18 months and the costs more or less double to say £200 million, would that still look more attractive financially than anything offered within the City? Maybe the cost for a City stadium would cost us £300 - £400 million by the time it got off the ground.
I don’t go in for rumours but this one raises a question, a site on the East Lancs, very close to Kirkby but still in the City boundaries has been talked about, if true would this not pose the same problems as DK? As I said a rumour but if its looked at theoretically would people then think it viable?
109 Posted 11/08/2008 at 22:43:24
Each site would have to measured on its own merits. Personally, I don’t believe any peripheral or out of town site can work for EFC or probably in any British 2 team city. I can’t stress enough the need for high capacity public transport. This generally fades to low capacity at the edges in most British cities..... therefore even a site just inside the boundary would not tick that box IMO. Likewise if the Speke proposal resurfaced I would be against that for the same reasons (and I could walk to it), the place is grid-locked and poorly served. People also seem to believe that only Tesco can deliver this scale of development, that they hold the copyright on land release and enabling projects. The Kings Dock stadium would have been 90% funded by a similar scheme on a much smaller plot and would have delivered a far superior and more expensive stadium, Downtown developments do not need acres of retail space to generate finances. They can build upwards and create far greater returns. Of course that climate is changing all the time, but suffice to say that Bestway’s original estimate was that EFC’s contribution would have been approx £60m for a HOK designed 55,000 seater stadium, not the penny-mix Barr effort. Of course at the time EFC were saying Kirkby was costing us nowt so Bestway were sent packing. That’s when EFC should have been bargaining hard to get their best deal. Bestway should have been encouraged to put up or shut up...... and stadium design firms given the task of studying all the options for redevelopment too and produced costed plans to increase capacity by 5k,10k..... 15k etc. Now we have only got Tesco (worth Billions and run by a blue)/Knowsley demanding that we will actually have to cough up £78m so they get precisely what they want, and cannot possibly have without us (except that Tesco have ensured that they have a plan B). Exclusivity? Deal of the century? We’ve been had!!
110 Posted 12/08/2008 at 01:10:36
You have contradicted yourself.
Read what TC (Top Cat) says and please write an ARTICLE rather than a post...
This is a waste of my time though I would love a giggle--anyway;
Moutinho still on.
111 Posted 12/08/2008 at 12:37:32
I make this point as I am sick of hearing people refer to those who wish to stay at Goodison as ?Luddites.? The approach the GFE took in commissioning this report was responsible, professional, forward thinking and, by the way, bloody expensive. To hear other Evertonians slagging off their fellow supporters in this manner smacks of ignorance. I want the best for Everton Football Club. I happen to believe that is achievable at Goodison Park. Mr. Ward?s study confirms this. Or is this award winning architect a Luddite as well?
112 Posted 12/08/2008 at 16:54:38
Is an increase in capacity all that is needed? Whilst it may be possible to increase the capacity to 55,000 would it still be possible to include the corporate boxes we are told we need? Would the other facilities such as catering and toilets be improved and would then need to accomodate a much increased capacity?
The club tell us they are looking to improve much more than just an increase in capacity so as the club is more saleable.
Personally I think the current owners believe a shiney new stadium is the best way to attract the new investment we are crying out for. That doesn’t mean I’m saying DK would have been the right move but maybe even a redeveloped GP won’t deliver what the board believe we need.
113 Posted 12/08/2008 at 18:23:51
The Ward McHugh scheme included plenty of exec accommodation and being in walton would be 5 miles closer to Liverpool’s CBD, and the more affluent South Liverpool and Wirral suburbs that would probably be expected to provide most bums on seats. What other improvements are the club claiming that cannot be delivered by the Ward McHugh or any other design for that matter. DK is a £2k per seat off-the-shelf bog standard format. It couldn’t be any cheaper for the capacity. The same amount spent on Goodison Park could create more boxes and greater capacity. Kirkby in its proposed format has less boxes than Highbury had, and well less than Whitehart lane has now...... it really is nothing remarkable at all, in function or form!
114 Posted 12/08/2008 at 18:53:59
May I add, here, a brief defence of the original Luddites? They were workers, mainly in agriculture, in the years after Waterloo, who were seeing their jobs, livelihoods and families being destroyed by agricultural machinery. The countryside was also experiencing landowners and rich farmers, by Acts of Parliament, enclosing and dispossessing the holdings of those poor farmers whose families had tilled them for hundreds of years. So they wrecked the hated machines and some even came together in illegal assembly,
threatening revolution. Not a few were hanged for their attacks on?progress?.
So in this increasingly foolish and sterile debate on the future of Everton FC let us at least avoid the insult to brave, desperate. people who were being exploited and abused only half a century before Everton was founded.
Might I suggest ?traditionalist? for the supporters of the Goodison redevelopment option? That, incidentally, is my preferred option and it does seem that it is not necessarily ruled out on purely business grounds relative to the alternatives.
115 Posted 13/08/2008 at 10:05:56
So, that covers those against moving out of the city.
Do you have a similar, gentle, euphemistic word to describe those FOR the move?
(nb: I?ve been using prick, dolt, dunce, knobhead etc, but they?re probably a little harsh)
116 Posted 13/08/2008 at 10:40:45
117 Posted 13/08/2008 at 12:09:20
So being realistic here, Paul, do you think we can win the Premier League or a major trophy in the next five years, if we move to Kirkby? Or anywhere else? The only move that will realistically improve our chances of being successful is the current board moving out before they make a bad situation even worse!!
118 Posted 13/08/2008 at 12:30:28
119 Posted 13/08/2008 at 13:14:29
120 Posted 13/08/2008 at 16:32:28
121 Posted 13/08/2008 at 17:33:12
Cheers and best wishes to all we long-suffering Evertonians, whether traditionalists or magic realists.
122 Posted 13/08/2008 at 19:18:44
123 Posted 13/08/2008 at 20:18:22
You must have some smart piss pots in your house if £78m wouldn’t buy one.