Everton's history is occasionally glorious, occasionally tragic but most often typified by the facts of life. We sometimes do and we sometimes don't have the money to change our position. In the 50s we did not have the money, in the 60s we did. Right now, we don't. Big money signings are not possible without it and that's why we have not been able to back David Moyes and the Johnny-come-lately players, like Phil Neville and Tim Howard, who called for massive investment in the squad at the end of last season.
In financial terms we are JUST top 10 ? and yet we've been trying to sign top four players. The maths has never added up. Building expectations at the start of the summer was simply folly. It was like telling a child you are going to be him a shiney new bike as you walk to the benefits office.
So, instead of cannily gearing up for more clever captures from lower leagues and across Europe and the Americas (like Villarreal, for example), we have been flirting with spending tens of millions of pounds we don't really have. My guess? We have offered £12 million for Moutinho at £3 million a year, or £2 million a year for Wright-Phillips. The sums might add up to a big figure in the end, but they are resistable in the short term.
What we CAN do is pay big wages to a small group of good pros - the Ivan Campos of this world who have quality and charge high wages for their services but who come to the club free-of-charge. Blue Bill has tried to keep us all happy ? Moyes included ? by trying to spin bad offers into a good ones, but he knows the gap between 'us and them' at the moment is too big. We have to keep on doing what we have been doing: encouraging a clever manager to use his wits rather than spend money we don't have.
How can we bridge the gap? Move to Kirkby to generate more money. What are we doing next week? Forcing an EGM to get Kirkby buried... Madness.
The facts speak for themselves; Bill K. and David Moyes have been doing great work ? we are the envy of the Premier League - but that work has been about being clever with resources. Not pretending we have what we don't... that's no way to bridge the gap. Ask Leeds...
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 26/08/2008 at 14:44:17
Dont confuse the onfield change in our teams & expectations from the 90?s to now which has been brought about by David Moyes and the players David Moyes has brought in with the absolute shambles the way the clubs is ran at a higher level!!
Do not credit Bill Kenwright for things done by Moyes, he doesn't deserve it
2 Posted 26/08/2008 at 14:52:56
3 Posted 26/08/2008 at 14:51:25
The real problem is that the gap between the Top 4 (Top 20 in Europe) and the rest of us is widening year on year and with the huge amount of monies available in the CL and top league places continually going to them. This success brings in big sponsorship, develops a huge global brand and is self perpeptuating. The "true quality players" which are available also only want to play for the Top 20 or so European clubs and the rest of the players are passed down the chain as scrap.
How to break into it? ? well I suspect the Top 20 has about 15 clubs or so which will are there due to their huge successful histories and global support/brand ? Man U, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool!!!, Milans, Bayern, Ajax, Benefica, Juventus, Roma etc and 1 or 2 have crept in with wealthy benefactors ? Chelsea.
Our only route in and then to stay in isvia this wealthy benefactor ? we unfortunately need an Abramovich.
4 Posted 26/08/2008 at 14:39:08
I have attempted to back the Chairman and Manager all the way, believing them both to be straightforward and honorable in their dealings with each other and with us as the fanbase. But because I have refused to propagate certain misleading (and, I suspect, untrue) ?releases?, I now find myself very much ?outside the tent?.
The recent demise of Keith Wyness and the ever virulent rumours regarding the roles of Messrs Green and Earl clearly indicate that all is not well at the top and any businessman will tell you that when the men at the top fall out it heralds much trouble to follow. Of course we would all like the Manager to have £50-60Million at his disposal. Of course we would all like to be in a position to re-generate Goodison Park without dissipating that transfer fund. But the truth is it ain?t ever going to happen and that isn?t through mis-management or muddle. It?s because these days players command huge wages and like almost all clubs we can?t generate enough money to keep up.
There is no shame in that. Bill Kenwright is a good man, David Moyes an excellent manager, so tell it how it is, for God?s sake. Don?t hide behind the snow jobs which the pathetic PR boys keep showering us with on a daily basis.
The job of everyone at the Club is to win over ? and maintain ? the goodwill of it?s followers.Instead we have alienation and almost total distrust. Something MUST change soon!
5 Posted 26/08/2008 at 15:10:05
You quite rightly castigate the pathetic utterances from the Everton PR machine, but even you must recognise that the PR is just following an agreed agenda with the Board.
Furthermore, the SOMEONE who has to come clean on the situations both regarding the transfer kitty and the new stadium has to be the Chairman. The "watch this space" soundbites only exacerbate the situation and increase the distrust.
You can’t blame all our woes on PR.
6 Posted 26/08/2008 at 15:19:02
Actually, the key phrase is "because I have refused to propagate certain misleading (and, I suspect, untrue) ?releases?..."
So you were in effect a club plant after all, eh, Richard. Now that’;s out of the way, let’s hear some more sensible thinking from you, alrite?
7 Posted 26/08/2008 at 15:24:46
You write "because I have refused to propagate certain misleading (and, I suspect, untrue) ?releases? "
I’ve just remembered that 3 weeks ago you wrote,
a) The Club will make 5/6 QUALITY signings
b) DM will sign a new contract
c) Kirkby will get the go-ahead
I presume this was when you were willing to propagate untrouths.
I’m afraid you have been a part of the Everton PR disgrace.
True or False Richard ???
8 Posted 26/08/2008 at 15:31:39
As for this EGM madness ? WTF are you on about? Why is there this assumption that DK is going to be all singing & light ? what?s it based on? If Kirkby is so great, what is wrong with the club pointing this out (with some facts) at the EGM?
Of course the problem is that they haven?t got any facts ? just sound bites.
9 Posted 26/08/2008 at 15:33:19
10 Posted 26/08/2008 at 15:43:24
11 Posted 26/08/2008 at 15:50:07
Lay off the evo stick mate!
12 Posted 26/08/2008 at 16:20:03
You’d have to be off your rocker to be envious of our chairman or our manager right now. I’m certainly not.
And even less people are attracted to them it seems...
13 Posted 26/08/2008 at 16:43:57
"Do not credit Bill Kenwright for things done by Moyes, he doesn’t deserve it"
He doesn’t deserve it...he only stuck by Moyes in the throws of abuse from parts of the Everton crowd, like John Lloyd. Finishing 4th from bottom...scored the lowest number of goals in a season...and still he stuck by him. This is the most stable consecutive highest league postions we’ve had, but John doesn’t want to hear that....lets be negative....like waiting for another british wimbledon champion hey John ??
14 Posted 26/08/2008 at 17:33:19
You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry....
15 Posted 26/08/2008 at 18:20:41
16 Posted 26/08/2008 at 18:16:31
We can do a lot better, but at the end of the day, if the board won?t release the funds to allow the manager to buy players and show a complete lack of ambition, then yes, you are right, we will have to keep trawling the Championship for players. However, if the board had ambition, then finishing fourth or higher would pull in bigger crowds and generate more money (a al CL), if not then perhaps they should resign and allow somebody with passion and vision to take the reins!!!
17 Posted 26/08/2008 at 18:09:48
18 Posted 26/08/2008 at 18:30:21
19 Posted 26/08/2008 at 18:39:06
Fact is Jed, we?ve been watching this space all Summer and you can defend BK all you like, but he has lied to fellow Evertonians. I can accept having no money if we?re told the truth. Agents have let us down? We?re waiting for the right player to come along? So Jacobsen is what we?ve been waiting for?
I find it beyond belief that anyone can defend what has gone on at Goodison Park this summer.
20 Posted 26/08/2008 at 18:46:25
"Goodison is too small and there is no Tesco laying a golden egg of co-finance. And unless LCC finally pulls out its collective finger, where else is there?"
Couple of points.
Fact: It has been PROVED Goodison CAN be redeveloped.
Fact: LCC gave us a co-finance fucking golden Ostrich egg and Bill ’ring-fenced’ Kenwright not only blew it, he bullshitted us all into the bargain.
We ALL (you included) now know this to be fact, so why persist in ignoring it?
LCC, Warren Bradley, etc MAY be useless and PROBABLY are self-serving gob-shites.
But it seems to me, in the recent past, they HAVE at least given us one option that would have suited all Evertonians.
The same absolutely can’t be said about Kenwright.
21 Posted 26/08/2008 at 20:16:11
Secondly, EJ of course it has been proven Goodison can be redeveloped...... at greater expense than Kirkby and for a lower end capacity! The spiralling upwards out of control price of steel, the recession and the credit crunch have put paid to ANY plans of an alternative new stadium idea emerging any time soon. That leaves DK - and I?m confident Tesco and Leahy will "take care" of the rising costs of our new ground while we await the conclusions of the fast-tracked public inquiry as early as the Spring. :)
22 Posted 26/08/2008 at 20:44:08
I persoanlly believe TL is far too shrewd an operator to continue to throw good money at a project that has ZERO chance of going ahead
TL will "take care" of Tesco
23 Posted 26/08/2008 at 20:56:17
24 Posted 26/08/2008 at 21:36:00
Yep, the old lady can be developed...but where are we going to get the extra 100 mill needed to redevelop properly?
as for the KD......fantastic looking stadia......but was it a good deal?......I say no!.......look at the small print!......35 mill for 49% was not good 7 years ago!
We are skint, mortgaged to the hilt and this is just trying to keep up with the Villas of this world!
We cannot afford to redevelop Goodison unless you know of a billionaire....or two who just loves us for who we are.
25 Posted 26/08/2008 at 22:23:52
Correct me if I?m wrong, but wouldn?t Tesco be subsidising us against the size of DK, but if this things going to get past the public enquiry it?s going to have to be drastically reduced in size. Also the Stadium was the one thing trying to justify the size of DK, so if it?s reduced in size the stadium isn?t needed, so why would Tesco give us the best part of £100 million when they could spend a few mil on a sports centre or something?
Just a thought.
26 Posted 26/08/2008 at 22:54:56
Just maybe....... an astonishing thought!......the chairman of Tesco IS helping us!
......and he loves us!
27 Posted 26/08/2008 at 23:15:09
28 Posted 26/08/2008 at 23:14:38
Apart from the last paragraph this is the best article I have read regarding our current financial predicament. I would even go so far as to say we have lost out on imediate investment as a result of the DK call in. We will just have to disagree over the issue of whether DK would be the death of the club in the longer term. In time we may or may not Know.
29 Posted 26/08/2008 at 23:25:00
I read an article a few years ago that when Terry retires from his Tesco job he is favourite to become a director at the club.
I?m hoping he will prove it?s worth it...... because we need it!
30 Posted 26/08/2008 at 23:25:25
Where did the figures over the redevelopment of Goodison come from?! Was that just an expert guesstimate? Can Tescos really just magically change commodity prices willy nilly for their vested interests? Or perhaps they have a deal themselves with Iron Bru? Maybe Li Tie?s been brought in to talk the Chinese out of their demand of steel?
Jesus fucking wept!
So when are the three M?s signing then oh oracle?
31 Posted 27/08/2008 at 00:13:48
Tesco Terry is one of the top businessmen in the country and he didn?t get to the top of his trade by throwing Tesco?s money at his own personal interests. From a business point of view, everything he has done has been for the benefit of Tesco ? otherwise he would be kicked out.
Do you honestly think that he could keep his job by throwing money Everton?s way, unless it benefits Tesco?
If you do, you must be at least one of the following:
32 Posted 27/08/2008 at 11:47:56
"Andy, E.J. Precisely what lie did BK say? A direct quote from the man himself"
Kenwright: ’The money for Kings Dock is ring-fenced’
This was a lie.
Now I understand human behaviour enough to KNOW that your response will not be "Oh yeah...my question, on reflection, was REALLY fucking stupid".
But it was.
33 Posted 27/08/2008 at 12:13:10
If you look at the spec for the project...Tesco only needed to have a sports related project attached.
So, in essence they do not need us!
So.....who?s stupid now!.....it pays to do your homework!.....
34 Posted 27/08/2008 at 12:44:24
God, I?m confused
35 Posted 27/08/2008 at 14:33:55
I believe it could have been a similar sized complex.....
Anyway, a £200M+ stadium for about £50M..... it doesn?t benefit us at all.... does it?
36 Posted 27/08/2008 at 14:49:36
The bigger point is this. Bill Kenwright has chaired a club that was relegation-fodder when he took over, with a negative manager and with dwindling gates. Since then, we have recruited a fabulous manager, qualified for Europe three times and seen gates rise. He has encountered the same stadium issues the previous two regimes encountered and is yet to solve them ? that does not make him a liar. It makes him unable to solve a problem like the rest of us.
I just don't know how helpful it is to rant about a man who is largely a success story for Everton. But some people always will wont they? Or is that me dangerously knowing something about human behaviour?
37 Posted 27/08/2008 at 17:20:59
would that be the same chairman who "spoke to Walter every day" and who messed Trevor Birch about and then appointed Wyness.
They were very successful appointments too I suppose?
If I’m not mistaken didnt Kenwright also approve the appointment of Ian Ross mind you I can understand that one because they can share fairytales with each other.
No matter which way you look at it apart from Moyes relative success with the team the rest of Kenwright’s reign has been a complete combination of incompetence, fantasy, bullshit and deceipt.
38 Posted 27/08/2008 at 17:03:05
’Ged and his semantics antics’ (he’s always got a get-out!).
You say.. "Thanks, EJ. I?d like the link to that quote BUT it does not answer my question".
With all respect - bollocks!
It DOES answer your question
If you choose to cover your ears and shout ’BLUEBLURBLUR! when receiving an answer, that’s your business (and fine with me if you want to continue deluding yourself)
Oh and one more thing, you seem to have confused me with Jon-Jon, your Phillipino house-boy.
(in other words, find your own bleeding links!)
39 Posted 27/08/2008 at 17:28:51
where do you get 100 million to develop GP?
Not long ago I published a "Goodison redevelopment" excercise conducted by eminent stadium engineers which estimated the cost of redeveloping GP at around 40 million in 2001.
More recently experienced construction engineers such as Tom Hughes have explained in detail on here how GP can be redeveloped at a lower cost than Kirkby and ultimately attaining a much higher capacity of 57000 as opposed to 50401 that Kirkby is capped at.
Now the first thing to make you suspicious of the motives behind Kirkby is the claim by the EFC board that they couldnt consider the loop because the maximum capacity was 55000 and they wanted 75000.
Why then accept a cap of 50401 at Kirkby?
40 Posted 27/08/2008 at 19:01:13
How is it a "£200M+" Stadium? If it was any potential investor would have to pay that on top of what we’re worth now, rather than spend that on a new city center stadium. Or maybe you’re just rounding numbers to suit your argument? If so then it should at a cost of £100M to Everton.
By the way good point about the loop Jay Harris
41 Posted 27/08/2008 at 19:16:05
If you read the broadsheets ie the Times they state that the stadium would normally cost over 200 mill to build but we will be getting it for approx a quarter of the cost. A bargain.
Jay, the loop is hopeless even myu no voting friends say so....bad position, no space....a shocker.
re the capacity at dk, as i have mentioned before, this can be made bigger with a ’variation’ ie an application to increase the capacity....not difficult!
This is also the case for ’uses’ of the stadium ie concerts etc....this can be changed in due course.
I do agree Tom does talk much sense, however if you look at Tottenham and their proposed redevelopment....it will cost 300 million, probably a better spec than ours....but 300 million!
So I am not calling your figures bogus and optomistic ....but..........they appear very optomistic.
I have read other no voters on this site statingthat the Bullens alone will cost 60 million to redevelop properly....with the house and land purchases, removal of the school etc....and the possibilty that our beloved council will not play ball!....so to speak.
So. A report 8 years ago to me seriously needs costing properly before it can enter the fray.
42 Posted 27/08/2008 at 21:25:31
43 Posted 28/08/2008 at 10:26:18
If the stadium is worth £200m then that land in Kirkby must be the most expensive land in the country!
Your arguments come from the Wyness school of accounting. So let?s look at the stadium costs:
EFC Stadium debt £78m
Tesco contrinbution £50m (Who knows how much of this goes towards the stadium, but for the moment never mind ? nb Tesco did specifically say it wasn?t towards the cost of the new stadium).
Other than some architects fees that Tesco are contributing towards. What?s left is still around the £60-70m mark for the value of the land.
Also how £78m is approx a quarter of £200m makes me wonder what the schools are teaching nowadays and whether you have been doing your homework or not?
44 Posted 28/08/2008 at 13:14:46
Not my figures ask Mr. Times!
But it ain’t difficult really.....we will have a heavily subsidised stadia....Tesco builders, planners, no or little payment for infrastructure, roads in etc., so in effect although there is a direct contribution by Tesco, there is a far greater indirect contribution.
ps it will cost us less than 78 mill.
45 Posted 28/08/2008 at 13:25:27
The problem with you quoting figures from places like The Times is that you don?t give any sort of reference as to when this was said, who said it and in what context.
I would guess that the times are quoting from the blurb issued by that well-known institution - EFC. Still that?s okay because it seems that some contributors (not aimed at you) find it okay for EFC to distort the truth and constantly lie.
I think if you are going to use figures then you need to supply the above references, otherwise the contributions just become meaningless.
BTW the road in to our new TescoDome will probably be the Tesco car park! Oh and the £50m supplied by Tesco is, I suspect, also meant to cover the infrastructure. Don?t want any double counting here
46 Posted 28/08/2008 at 16:10:27
Methinks you are being disingenuous. At the time BK was being questioned as to why we had money for a stadium yet couldn?t use it to buy players. The answer was that the stadium money was "ring-fenced "and couldn?t be used for anything else.
47 Posted 28/08/2008 at 16:28:27
Why then accept a cap of 50401 at Kirkby? "
Different restrictions - one is a physical one, the other is a political one that can be renegoiated in the future.
What I don’t understand Jay is what you are claiming. You say Goodison can be redeveloped at a lower cost than Kirby (which I don’t accept by the way, but for the sake of argument let’s assume it’s correct). What then does Kenwright have to gain by moving to Kirkby? What’s his motivation?
48 Posted 28/08/2008 at 16:52:39
"ps it will cost us less than 78 mill."
The planning application specifically states Everton’s contribution as circa £78m. It certainly won’t cost less than that.
The actual cost of building the stadium, including fit out, is given as £130m, so that’s the value of the stadium, not £200m (the lands not worth £70m!).
For the life of me though, I can’t see how you could possibly rebuild Goodison at a lower price than that. To rebuild Goodison, you’d have to buy the surrounding land and houses, rebuild a school, pull down the existing stands and then build the stadium in a tighter space than at Kirkby. How can that possibly be cheaper than building at Kirkby? Surely it stands to reason that the additional space restriction can only increase costs? What am I missing?
49 Posted 28/08/2008 at 17:20:59
On Kenwright?s motivation, you are missing out the history of how we got to where we are today. Originally DK was supposed to cost EFC nowhere near £78m (and the rest!). Therefore there was no comparison between this figure & the cost of redevelopment.
Furthermore we now have Robert Earl (& who knows about Phillip Green) who are more interested in the retail side of DK and therefore not interested in a Goodison redevelopment.
Also if DK ever gets the go ahead, EFC may look like an attractive buy to some investors in the 2 or 3 years it will take to build the new ground. In that period it could be a good time for current shareholders to sell up and make a handsome profit.
However this does not mean that it is in the interests of EFC to move to Kirkby. Personally I think it will be a white elephant and will turn into a financial disaster, due to one major oversight - TRANSPORT.
Fans will not flock to a ground if you cannot get away from it in a reasonable time. With 50,000 people trying to get away after a night match- it?s a disaster waiting to happen and in the end only the diehards will bother to go (and EFC are managing to piss a fair number of them off before we even get there).
50 Posted 28/08/2008 at 17:41:14
Why does the history matter? If, today, the deal is better at Goodison, why do we not rebuild? Jay has argued for some time that Kenwright is just trying to squeeze as much money for himself as possible. If Goodison can be done cheaper, why wouldn’t Kenwright go for Goodison?
"Also if DK ever gets the go ahead, EFC may look like an attractive buy to some investors in the 2 or 3 years it will take to build the new ground. In that period it could be a good time for current shareholders to sell up and make a handsome profit."
Again, doesn’t answer the motivation question. The same would apply to Goodison - only moreso, if it were cheaper.
There’s also a slight paradox in the valueing of the club in the interim stage. On one hand, we are argueing that a new stadium boosts the value of the club. On the other hand, we are argueing that there’s a major risk that it would be a disaster. Are we not giving a buyer (and his army of financial advisors) credit for noticing this? Investors hate risk, and it would drive the price down.
"Furthermore we now have Robert Earl (& who knows about Phillip Green) who are more interested in the retail side of DK and therefore not interested in a Goodison redevelopment."
I would ask how exactly either of those two would make more money from Kirkby than Goodison, if indeed Goodison were cheaper. But let’s work Kenwright out first.
51 Posted 28/08/2008 at 18:43:52
Of course the history is relevant. BK would look a right fool if after all this time he suddenly said that maybe redeveloping Goodison would be a better plan than DK. Then even the most ardent Kenwright fans would realise how incompetent he is.
As for advisors going to notice how bad something could be ? look at the credit crunch - banks lending 125% mortgages and then surprised when they lose money.
Even BK doesn?t know anything about the potential transport problems at Kirkby ? so why would a bunch of investors?
Of course the history matters. BK would look a right fool if after all this time he suddenly said that maybe redeveloping Goodison would be better plan than DK. Then even the most ardent Kenwright fans would realise how incompetent he is.
52 Posted 28/08/2008 at 22:15:03
53 Posted 29/08/2008 at 04:30:45
OK, so the line of argument here is that Kenwright doesn’t care particularly about how much money he makes from a sale, he just cares that he doesn’t look incompetent in front of fans.
Because, if he looked incompetent, the fans might be able to force him to sell the club that he was intending to sell anyway, maybe for a price that isn’t perfect. Oh, but Kenwright isn’t that bothered about the price.
Is this the argument we are going for? Because to be honest it isn’t ringing true at all.
So my two points remain: one, how could it be possible to redevelop an existing stadium (including buying houses, rebuildigs schools etc) in a smaller area possibly be cheaper than building in Kirkby? And two, if, as some claim, Kenwright is aware that Goodison would be cheaper, what is his motivation for not doing so?
"As for advisors going to notice how bad something could be ? look at the credit crunch - banks lending 125% mortgages and then surprised when they lose money."
They were surprised at the SIZE of the losses. They had provisions right from the very start that some mortages would go bad.
These guys do sometimes misinterpret the size of a risk, but they virtually never miss the risk altogether. They are aware of them, and want higher returns as a result.
"Even BK doesn?t know anything about the potential transport problems at Kirkby ? so why would a bunch of investors?"
That’s a pretty dangerous argument right there. It implicitly argues that Kenwright must know more about a the risks to a football club that an outside investor. If you want Kenwright replaced, then who by, given that the investors know even less about the risks to a club than he does?
It’s not true, in any case. Investors get advice from consultants, who can tell you the risks associated with a new stadium, based on worldwide experience. In due dilligence, they would look at the forecasts for the stadium profits, and the transport issues would come out then.
54 Posted 29/08/2008 at 05:56:59
First of all I should point out that the footprint of GP as it stands is bigger than St James Park (capacity 57000) and if extended out to the car park (Park end) and permission was gained for going out over Bullens road would have a footprint as big as the Emirates (capacity 65000+).
Now I hope Tom Hughes doesn’t mind my copying an extract from one of his many valuable contributions but it illustrates how GP can be redeveloped economically.............
"The cost to build stands is anything from just over £1k per seat for very basic stands upto £5k per seat at the likes of the emirates with lots of variables in between. Kirkby is only about £2k per seat, how can a new tier at the rear of the existing Bullens with say 5,000 new seats cost more than £25m (more likely less than £20m). A new tier at the rear of the park end or even just an extension of this stand with say 7-10,000 seats wouldn?t cost anymore if specification for the end stand was nearer £3k per seat that?s a total of approx £50m for a 55k seater stadium. Using lower specifications, such as that for Kirkby proposal would reduce this figure further. What about enabling developments at the Park end to help fund this stand? Hotel/residential/commercial? Where are the clubs figures to show they have studied these options? Trevor Skempton is a renowned architect and has overseen the whole Grosvenor project.... he believes it is more than viable and is constant contact with the city planners, so he knows the parameters there too."
Now for those who dont know Tom is an experienced construction engineer and Trevor Skempton a renowned architect who was responsible for the redevelopment of St James Park and has been involved in other stadium developments.
As for Kenwright and his pals passion for DK as opposed to GP I have constantly put forward the theory that it is easier to do a bit of creative accounting with a 130 million development than 20 to 30 million redevelopment projects.
55 Posted 29/08/2008 at 06:37:12
"First of all I should point out that the footprint of GP as it stands is bigger than St James Park (capacity 57000) and if extended out to the car park (Park end) and permission was gained for going out over Bullens road would have a footprint as big as the Emirates (capacity 65000+)."
True, but not the point - nobody is questioning man’s ability to build a stadium. However, the footprint it’s still smaller than Kirkby, and hence would cost more. That’s one of the reasons the Emiriates costs so much per seat, when you’d expect economy of scale to be helping them.
The thing us, Tom clearly knows more than either of us, so there’s no point us argueing over techical points. However, cost is fair game: nobody (as far as I am aware) has been able to supply a figure for the cost of Goodison, beyond "these things generally cost £2k a stand, so let’s take that number".
Here’s an example which google throws up: Blackpool are building a new stand. The land was flattened years ago (currently there is no stand there at all, been that way for years), so the costs are reduced there. They are about to build a 3000 single tier stand, which is about as basic as you can get. Cost? About £8m. That’s over £2500 per seat.
If I’m wrong, and a summary of costs exists that is more precise, I’d love to see it. Otherwise I’m left with this contradiction of people saying it can be done on the cheap, which is ALWAYS the case at the planning stage. I’m not aware of any stadium whose cost didn’t rise then the fine detail gets looked at. Give me a reason why it’s cheaper than Kirkby, and I’ll believe you.
Anyway, what we are saying is that we wouldn’t rebuild Goodison, but rather we’d leave the main stand and the Street end and rebuild the other 2. This still leaves the problem of the number of obstructed views. If the aim is to get an extra 10k fans, these are the fans that are not the hardcore support, and hence are more likely to be put off by the bad views. The new Goodison isn’t up to the same standard as the new Kirkby if we only replace two stands.
In addition, there’s lost revenue in the interim stage. How much would this cost us?
"As for Kenwright and his pals passion for DK as opposed to GP I have constantly put forward the theory that it is easier to do a bit of creative accounting with a 130 million development than 20 to 30 million redevelopment projects."
What does that even mean? Exactly what creative acocunting are we talking about? To fool the banks into lending more money?
Any what exactly is your point? That Kirkby can actually be done for £100m to £110m, but we’ll claim it’s £130m to get extra money?
It’s this kind of aimless accusations that really annoy me. Yes, Kenwright makes mistakes, but that doesn’t give you the right to make these claims without (a) any proof or (b) any idea of how it could be done.
56 Posted 29/08/2008 at 13:58:15
You write ?These guys do sometimes misinterpret the size of a risk, but they virtually never miss the risk altogether? ? then why have some of the banks just lost billions?
57 Posted 29/08/2008 at 14:28:40
Exactly for the reason I said - they misinterpreted the size of the risk.
You seem to be under the assumption that banks don’t loan money when the think the loan might go bad. On the contrary, they are often happy to - as long as the potential reward makes up for that risk.
You say banks have lost billions. What actually happened is that more loans than expected went bad. They were expecting some to go bad, though not that many. Overall, they still make money, just not as much as they expected. That’s not losing money.
For example, HSBC still made £5.2bn last year, and they’ve been making huge profits for 20 years off those loans. Northern Rock has huge liquidity issues, not solvency.
Yes, banks are struggling at the moment, by their own standards. To suggest that the banks weren’t aware of this possibility is completely wrong, however. These guys are really, really good at what they do, which is make money in the short and medium term. The failure is one of regulation, not a failure of foresight by the banks.
Cliff notes (to get back on point): you can’t make statements along the lines "I’m pretty sure Kirkby will fail, but the investors won’t notice at all so will pay Bill a load of cash". Things just don’t work that way.