The Mail Bag
Tesco Kirkby Clanger
Comments (78)
Here is a comment from the KEIOC website, great news to all of us opposed to the move to Kirkby. Go on to the website and look at how the ground will impact on these homes. It would be like living in Gladwys St only in a £200k house. Mr Kenwright and Tesco have not done their homework!
The Grange is a private housing estate (in Kirkby) south-east to the stadium proposal. It turns out that prior to the public inquiry, the owners of the houses were totally ignored by Tesco ? no 'impact study' of the proposed development (to be built, including the stadium, within yards of the homes) on this private estate was including in the Environmental Assessment (a huge document) of the Tesco planning application.
Obviously, the owners of the houses, who were unsurprisingly horrified to learn of the proposals in the first place, made it clear to the inspector through written/photographic evidence of their view that the Tesco proposals would have a clear negative impact on their homes, both towards amenity and value of their property.
Gerry Dignam, Posted 01/02/2009 at 10:45:59
Comments
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
It is the most thoughtless project ever.
Note how the protestors have placed the stadium immediately adjacent the access road. Now note it?s position in the location map... separated from the access road by a significantly greater distance (approximately 2-3 times the length of the back garden of the nearest house.)
If you?re going to put evidence in front of a Planning Inspector, at least try to make it accurate... otherwise you just undermine your case.
If you?re going to put evidence in front of a Planning Inspector, at least try to make it accurate... otherwise you just undermine your case.
Yeah but at least the lucky owners won’t have to wait for ages in the rain to be crush loaded into packed carriages to go the game! ;-)
Michael - I thought we all had to cycle to the match?? I went and bought a bike for xmas... and I live in Brum...
It may be the most thoughtless project ever, however it will suddenly employ countless people (and not at the ever dwindling taxpayers expense). If this gets KB’ed in the current financial and political climate I will be amazed.
Shock! Horror! Massive new retail and stadium development will have negative impact on some nearby existing residents! Who would have thought?
Kirkby is probably quite as well thought out as most of Tesco’s developments - nearly all of which get approval. As Simon says, it will be amazing in the current environment if the Government doesn’t approve this one.
There are indeed some good reasons to do with Everton Football Club to be against the Kirkby move. But this "devastating blow" to the Kirkby proposal is obviously nothing of the sort (and has nothing to do with us anyway). It is this kind of hysterical over-reaction which has given KEIOC a bad name. Let’s stick to the arguments about Everton and our interests. Hoping that the residents of The Grange are going to overturn DK is really clutching at straws.
Kirkby is probably quite as well thought out as most of Tesco’s developments - nearly all of which get approval. As Simon says, it will be amazing in the current environment if the Government doesn’t approve this one.
There are indeed some good reasons to do with Everton Football Club to be against the Kirkby move. But this "devastating blow" to the Kirkby proposal is obviously nothing of the sort (and has nothing to do with us anyway). It is this kind of hysterical over-reaction which has given KEIOC a bad name. Let’s stick to the arguments about Everton and our interests. Hoping that the residents of The Grange are going to overturn DK is really clutching at straws.
So we forget how it is going to impact on these people’s lives, and just think of our own interests Neil?
How would you feel if this was happening on your doorstep?
Would you be happy to have the value of your property drop?
How would you feel if this was happening on your doorstep?
Would you be happy to have the value of your property drop?
One more thing Neil, how can it have nothing to do with us, we would be part of the developement?
Well done KEIOC ...!!!
Another week of evidence to come,and Destination Shed in a Car Parkwill be shown up for what it is. An utter disaster... from Transport Links, to Design & Local Residents concerns et al .... it stinks!!!
Keep up the good work!!!
EFC 2009: We still have not been moved.
Another week of evidence to come,and Destination Shed in a Car Parkwill be shown up for what it is. An utter disaster... from Transport Links, to Design & Local Residents concerns et al .... it stinks!!!
Keep up the good work!!!
EFC 2009: We still have not been moved.
I have to admit Neil I used to think of you as just a gullible fool, but that last post reminded me of Rik Mayall?s famous 80s charachter from the New Statesman, M Bastard ? lol.
Hmmmm lets just stay where we are then. When will KEIOC learn that the LIverpool council WILL NOT give us any decent land to build our new stadium on? When will they learn that LCC WILL NOT help us in any way? Let's just look at the recent decision to refuse planning permission on Bellefield when the planning department had passed the proposal! Let's just do one from the Liverpool boundaries where it is LCC who is strangling the future of Everton FC.
Kenwright is a puppet for Tesco.
I’d like Neil to answer how a massive retail company with years and years of planning and expansion experience explain how they "forgot" these particular residents in their planning application having provided exhaustive detail and minutae on so many other aspects including funding several planning and transport "experts"? Surely such an "oversight" smacks a little of their smugness and ignorance of all parties likely to be affected? I’d be interested to know if they have had several similar "oversights" in past planning applications elsewhere.
And as far as creating jobs in the current global credit crisis goes; don’t you think its going to take a bit more than some minimum wage retail jobs to create a booming economy in Kirkby given that retail is one sector being hit by the credit crunch as hard as banking - when people have no money to spend or are tightening their belts they don’t give a monkey’s about a new shop.
And as far as creating jobs in the current global credit crisis goes; don’t you think its going to take a bit more than some minimum wage retail jobs to create a booming economy in Kirkby given that retail is one sector being hit by the credit crunch as hard as banking - when people have no money to spend or are tightening their belts they don’t give a monkey’s about a new shop.
Can't wait for the Hall of Fame dinner in March, Kenwright is going to get it!!!
Kevin, I think I remember LCC providing us with the Kings Dock for £30Million and Kewright fucked it up. Apparently they are offering us land but Everton won't listen, as far as Bellefield's concerned, of course they're going to put obstacles in the way of us going.
Thanks Rich for the usual abuse! I?d love to hear about the free land you think LCC are offering us ? can you say more? Wonder why that has made less news for the problems of The Grange?
Brian ? I could just as easily say: don?t you care about all the people who would get jobs if KD went ahead? Don?t you care about the beneficial effects this would have for the revitalisation of Kirkby? (Gavin, nobody says this is going to make Kirkby the next Dubai ? but you can?t seriously be saying that it won?t increase local economic activity?)
All I am saying is that, as with the nature of these big developments, there will be some economic gainers and some economic losers. Probably more gainers in the current environment, which is why it will get approved. However, I think quite legitimately our major concerns here are on the impact on our Everton FC ? not on residents of Kirkby, homeowners in The Grange, Skem shopkeepers, Liverpool retailers etc. etc.. Some will gain, some will lose. Nature of the beast.
I would love to see the argument that it will be BETTER for the overall economy of Merseyside if Tesco and others don?t spend hundreds of millions in Kirkby. That would certainly take some arguing!
But our concern is what is best for us. Personally I think the best thing for us would be a groundshare, followed by Kirkby (given what we can actually afford) ? but we have all been over and over all this ground by now.
Brian ? I could just as easily say: don?t you care about all the people who would get jobs if KD went ahead? Don?t you care about the beneficial effects this would have for the revitalisation of Kirkby? (Gavin, nobody says this is going to make Kirkby the next Dubai ? but you can?t seriously be saying that it won?t increase local economic activity?)
All I am saying is that, as with the nature of these big developments, there will be some economic gainers and some economic losers. Probably more gainers in the current environment, which is why it will get approved. However, I think quite legitimately our major concerns here are on the impact on our Everton FC ? not on residents of Kirkby, homeowners in The Grange, Skem shopkeepers, Liverpool retailers etc. etc.. Some will gain, some will lose. Nature of the beast.
I would love to see the argument that it will be BETTER for the overall economy of Merseyside if Tesco and others don?t spend hundreds of millions in Kirkby. That would certainly take some arguing!
But our concern is what is best for us. Personally I think the best thing for us would be a groundshare, followed by Kirkby (given what we can actually afford) ? but we have all been over and over all this ground by now.
Sorry Gavin, missed your question on Tesco. Let’s see how important these people in The Grange turn out be! If they stop DK in its tracks, then Tesco have really messed up. If (as I suspect) they make no difference whatsoever to the outcome of the inquiry, then no big deal.
Tesco are without doubt a ruthless and self-interested profit-driven business institution. But they are also one of the global retailing success stories of times. Based on their track record, I think we might want to pause a little before we conclude that they have made a total balls up of the KIrkby application.
Tesco are without doubt a ruthless and self-interested profit-driven business institution. But they are also one of the global retailing success stories of times. Based on their track record, I think we might want to pause a little before we conclude that they have made a total balls up of the KIrkby application.
The project of course would create jobs Neil, but the developement could have a huge negative impact on the residents of Kirkby, house prices falling, gridlock on matchdays etc.
When a huge company like Tesco are involved in these developements, their attitude seems to be one of, fuck the little people, as long as we get what we want.
As Gavin mentioned, how did Tesco forget these residents in their planning application? Is it because they are the ?little people? who don?t matter?
When a huge company like Tesco are involved in these developements, their attitude seems to be one of, fuck the little people, as long as we get what we want.
As Gavin mentioned, how did Tesco forget these residents in their planning application? Is it because they are the ?little people? who don?t matter?
Sorry Neil I forgot what a sensitve sole you are, LCC had a proposal with Bestaway providing an enabling factor but Everton wont listen ? what's the difference Neil?
Rich, were LCC giving us the land for free for the Loop? Do you think Bestway can provide what Tesco is providing in terms of project leadership and enabling development in Kirkby? Do you think it would be as cheap to build a stadium on the Loop site as on the Kirkby site?
I?ve asked you before Rich: do you think it is possible to build a stadium for a net cost to us of around £80M in the city of Liverpool? If so, why aren?t Kenwright and the Board jumping at the chance? (If your argument is ? they are purely self-interested and will make a killing out of Kirkby ? please explain why they wouldn?t make the same or even more out of the Loop.)
I?ve asked you before Rich: do you think it is possible to build a stadium for a net cost to us of around £80M in the city of Liverpool? If so, why aren?t Kenwright and the Board jumping at the chance? (If your argument is ? they are purely self-interested and will make a killing out of Kirkby ? please explain why they wouldn?t make the same or even more out of the Loop.)
Brian, I completely agree with you about Tesco’s attitudes. My points are only that I doubt that Tesco have screwed up their application, and I would be surprised if in the current environment the application isn’t approved.
I just think it is a waste of time and irrelevant to us to debate whether we care more about Kirkby residents or Skem retailers. And I doubt that this latest excitement about The Grange is much to get excited about in terms of the result of the inquiry.
I just think it is a waste of time and irrelevant to us to debate whether we care more about Kirkby residents or Skem retailers. And I doubt that this latest excitement about The Grange is much to get excited about in terms of the result of the inquiry.
It is a world of different opinions.
I can't understand how anybody believes a word that Kenwright says but there are people that think the sun shines out of his arse.
IMO IMO (did I say "in my opinion"?) the sooner Kirkby and Kenwright go, the sooner we can build a club on proper foundation not bullshit.
Kirkby fails on so many counts: Transport, standard of building, standard of design, next door to a grocery superstore, too far out of the city, poor return on investment (for EFC), and too much benefit for Billy Boy?s pals.
I can't understand how anybody believes a word that Kenwright says but there are people that think the sun shines out of his arse.
IMO IMO (did I say "in my opinion"?) the sooner Kirkby and Kenwright go, the sooner we can build a club on proper foundation not bullshit.
Kirkby fails on so many counts: Transport, standard of building, standard of design, next door to a grocery superstore, too far out of the city, poor return on investment (for EFC), and too much benefit for Billy Boy?s pals.
Neil I've provided answers for you before on subjects regarding Kirkby and youve ignored them, see the "What is wrong with LCC?" thread, you've done it with others too Neil.
As I understand it the reason for submitting these scale drawings are two fold. Firstly the applicants have a habit of submitting plans that aren?t quite what they intending to build, see Stockport, Deysbrook and Allerton Rd stores, my understanding is that the latest drawings from the grange residents are actually what is being proposed. The second reason is there are quite strict rules on scale of new buildings close to established residential properties.
Of course, apart from a couple of idiots, most of you are right, the government will take the appellants claims on regeneration and job creation into account; they?ll consider if regeneration could be achieved without driving a coach and horses through just about every piece of planning legislation previously agreed and they?ll balance these claims surrounding job creation against similar claims of job losses from Liverpool, Sefton, West Lancs and St Helens after which they?ll make an informed decision. It?s a nightmare of a job deciding who?s telling the truth though; check these document that have just been submitted.
http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%20Evidence/LCC-INQ-7.pdf
http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%20Evidence/WR-HARRISON-1.doc
http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%20Evidence/WR-RCO-2%20Submission%20Final%20%283%29.doc
More to come I hear!
Of course, apart from a couple of idiots, most of you are right, the government will take the appellants claims on regeneration and job creation into account; they?ll consider if regeneration could be achieved without driving a coach and horses through just about every piece of planning legislation previously agreed and they?ll balance these claims surrounding job creation against similar claims of job losses from Liverpool, Sefton, West Lancs and St Helens after which they?ll make an informed decision. It?s a nightmare of a job deciding who?s telling the truth though; check these document that have just been submitted.
http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%20Evidence/LCC-INQ-7.pdf
http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%20Evidence/WR-HARRISON-1.doc
http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%20Evidence/WR-RCO-2%20Submission%20Final%20%283%29.doc
More to come I hear!
Neil,
I?ve just read your response where you extol the benefits of our alleged relationship with Tesco, just what are ?we? getting from Tesco? Are you still of the opinion that ?we? are getting £52m from Tesco? Please tell me you still don?t believe the deception and double speak of Everton?s previous CEO, his lackey?s and some professional shysters intent on delivering a development that has no place in Kirkby. Surely nobody is that gullible.
I?ve just read your response where you extol the benefits of our alleged relationship with Tesco, just what are ?we? getting from Tesco? Are you still of the opinion that ?we? are getting £52m from Tesco? Please tell me you still don?t believe the deception and double speak of Everton?s previous CEO, his lackey?s and some professional shysters intent on delivering a development that has no place in Kirkby. Surely nobody is that gullible.
Neil,
You are still attempting to justify the unjustifiable without really addressing any of the problems.
DK is purely a case of making a problem fit a solution rather than seeking the best solution(s) to the problems, ie the complete opposite of a normal design process. That solution has been generated out of Tesco/Arcadia and Knowsley's mutual objectives, with little or no regard to basic stadium planning philosophy. Every incremental stage since before the vote has been solely aimed towards attaining that solution, and once each hurdle has been negotiated each fabrication has been quietly discarded having done its job as with all the outlandish statements that accompanied the vote, that then were used to discredit the Loop, and supported the various promises before and since regarding transport, cost, stadium quality and no doubt even some of what is spouted now at the Inquiry..... all eventually watered down to the cold reality of what is a very basic off-the-shelf stadium, on a poor site, with poor accessibility/transport at cost price. A far cry from what was promised to secure the vote. In any design process, you start with your problems and objectives not a solution to someone else?s that you have to comply too and adjust your problems accordingly.
You are still attempting to justify the unjustifiable without really addressing any of the problems.
DK is purely a case of making a problem fit a solution rather than seeking the best solution(s) to the problems, ie the complete opposite of a normal design process. That solution has been generated out of Tesco/Arcadia and Knowsley's mutual objectives, with little or no regard to basic stadium planning philosophy. Every incremental stage since before the vote has been solely aimed towards attaining that solution, and once each hurdle has been negotiated each fabrication has been quietly discarded having done its job as with all the outlandish statements that accompanied the vote, that then were used to discredit the Loop, and supported the various promises before and since regarding transport, cost, stadium quality and no doubt even some of what is spouted now at the Inquiry..... all eventually watered down to the cold reality of what is a very basic off-the-shelf stadium, on a poor site, with poor accessibility/transport at cost price. A far cry from what was promised to secure the vote. In any design process, you start with your problems and objectives not a solution to someone else?s that you have to comply too and adjust your problems accordingly.
The Design process is arduous and complex enough without external constraints that can never give the optimum solution for the club. This has been gradually exposed by the farcical transport and costing revelations that are still unravelling now. Deal of the century... for who? An £80-100m stadium costing us £80-100m on a site we can?t get to easily meaning we wont fill it to pay for it! BK sells before the paint dries, gets 3-5 times the current value of his holding his mates get their cash back and their shops that they would never have got without us.... and we?re still left with a new owner who has paid well over the odds for a stadium most don?t want and can?t get to anyway. He was right this will be the deal of the century for him, Tesco, Green and Knowsley.
Did anyone know that Villa did a deal whereby they can use all the retail carparks around them during matchdays. They had to because it was chaos having both operating at the same time, so the shops had to shut!
You also omit to ponder the effect this will have on Skem?s scheme..... one which is fully compliant and more important for Skem given that area?s relative isolation and placing in the retail hierarchy which is proportionate to their need. Also omitting to mention the effect on the multi-billion pound redevelopment of the city centre that has the whole city region?s future riding on it as the regions biggest employer and not just an out of town housing estate which incidentally also has several thousand residents reliant on its success. Fabricating a perceived need in isolation to help justify DK is farcical. I worked in Kirkby for over 6 years and to compare its problems with most of inner city Liverpool is a joke.
Fine Rich, just carrying on believing that Everton could easily build an £80M stadium in the city if they wanted to. But they?ve decided not to because... (you tell me!).
I gave up on the LCC thread when you said that you didn?t think Everton was getting any subsidy at Kirkby - when you had argued for ages on another thread that Kenwright was going to make a killing at Kirkby because of... the subsidy. There wasn?t really a lot I could say.
Now you say that LCC have offered us free land in the city ? but you won?t say anything more. Really, I think everyone on ToffeeWeb would be interested if this is true.
Rich, you are sincerely against Kirkby, and there are indeed some good arguments against Kirkby. Apart from Jay?s unsubstantiated comments about "Billy and his pals", he has basically the reasons in his post above to be against Kirkby. Why not stick to those and give up crazy claims about LCC?s generosity, the viability of the Loop, and the extent of Kenwright?s corruption?
I gave up on the LCC thread when you said that you didn?t think Everton was getting any subsidy at Kirkby - when you had argued for ages on another thread that Kenwright was going to make a killing at Kirkby because of... the subsidy. There wasn?t really a lot I could say.
Now you say that LCC have offered us free land in the city ? but you won?t say anything more. Really, I think everyone on ToffeeWeb would be interested if this is true.
Rich, you are sincerely against Kirkby, and there are indeed some good arguments against Kirkby. Apart from Jay?s unsubstantiated comments about "Billy and his pals", he has basically the reasons in his post above to be against Kirkby. Why not stick to those and give up crazy claims about LCC?s generosity, the viability of the Loop, and the extent of Kenwright?s corruption?
How much do the yanks pay LCC for Stanley Park?
Colin, what we are getting by being part of the Kirkby proposal is the opportunity to get a stadium for a spend from us whose latest estimate is £80M. Cutting through all the crap and complexity, it?s really as simple as that. Of course, Tesco is not ?giving us? £50M or anything crazy like that. We are just getting a stadium more cheaply than we would be able to get it elsewhere. If, like Rich, you think we WOULD get a comparable or better new stadium as cheap as this in the city, I would strongly support it. Do you think it is possible? Any ideas where and with whom?
Tom, let me say first of all that I agree that the transport issue is a serious concern about Kirkby, perhaps the greatest concern. I do not know for certain that it can be solved satisfactorily, but I not yet certain yet that it can?t be. Necessity is often the mother of invention, but this may be the killer argument against Kirkby (much more so than the residents in The Grange!)..
You repeat again the claim that Kenwright this time will make ?3-5? times the value of his investment by going to Kirkby. As I have said many times on here, you are directly contradicting yourself. You do not believe that fans are even going to be able to get to the ground - so why would someone come along and pay Bill so much for such an obviously disastrous business? Please don?t tell me that like some other posters on here you believe that the value of a business is not connected to its future success or profitability (if so I?d like to sell you an old car of mine which doesn?t actually go but has a net book value of £5,000).
On the economic impact of DK on Skem, Liverpool, Kirkby and so on ? my view is that no doubt there will be some winners and some losers. I simply do not know whether the winners will exceed the losers overall, but I would find it a little difficult to understand (especially in the current environment) how investing hundreds of millions in the region would make it WORSE as a whole.
Even if it did ? our concern here I assume is on what is best for our football club, not for the region as a whole. I would not expect you to support DK even if you did believe it would be best for the region. So I am not sure why we are getting into these issues.
Tom, let me say first of all that I agree that the transport issue is a serious concern about Kirkby, perhaps the greatest concern. I do not know for certain that it can be solved satisfactorily, but I not yet certain yet that it can?t be. Necessity is often the mother of invention, but this may be the killer argument against Kirkby (much more so than the residents in The Grange!)..
You repeat again the claim that Kenwright this time will make ?3-5? times the value of his investment by going to Kirkby. As I have said many times on here, you are directly contradicting yourself. You do not believe that fans are even going to be able to get to the ground - so why would someone come along and pay Bill so much for such an obviously disastrous business? Please don?t tell me that like some other posters on here you believe that the value of a business is not connected to its future success or profitability (if so I?d like to sell you an old car of mine which doesn?t actually go but has a net book value of £5,000).
On the economic impact of DK on Skem, Liverpool, Kirkby and so on ? my view is that no doubt there will be some winners and some losers. I simply do not know whether the winners will exceed the losers overall, but I would find it a little difficult to understand (especially in the current environment) how investing hundreds of millions in the region would make it WORSE as a whole.
Even if it did ? our concern here I assume is on what is best for our football club, not for the region as a whole. I would not expect you to support DK even if you did believe it would be best for the region. So I am not sure why we are getting into these issues.
I think Neil won that...
Neil, cutting through the crap as you say, firstly how are we getting an £80m stadium cheaper than anywhere else when we?re paying at least £80m for an £80m stadium and getting £10m thrown in from the NWDA obtained by the developers?
Secondly, how do you know that there?s nowhere else on offer if due to the exclusivity deal we haven?t made a concerted effort to find out? You keep mentioning Bestway, can you tell me what they and the council have on offer? I know, I?m asking why you and the club don?t.
Thirdly, don?t you feel a bit of a fool having to constantly attempt to accommodate the exposed lies, and that?s what they are, time and time again? You posted this statement ?Do you think Bestway can provide what Tesco is providing in terms of project leadership and enabling development in Kirkby??
As far as I can see Tesco are providing Everton an extremely poor stadium, that is a Trojan horse to deliver a 320% increase in retail entitlement, at what it costs but valued at £130m which is for the benefit of a very small group of individuals and there?s no, I repeat, NO enabling funding. This is confirmed on a daily basis by the appellant's counsel as he battles to justify this project through a sea of misleading information that he and the planning inspector are clearly getting fed up with.
Have you attempted to read the links I posted earlier regarding documents that have been submitted to the inquiry? I know it?s going to be difficult for you to swallow your pride here but to be honest it?s becoming embarrassing watching you attempting to explain the latest shame, you?re clearly flogging a horse that died a long long time ago.
Neil,
"what we are getting by being part of the Kirkby proposal is the opportunity to get a stadium for a spend from us whose latest estimate is £80M. Cutting through all the crap and complexity, it?s really as simple as that. Of course, Tesco is not ?giving us? £50M or anything crazy like that. We are just getting a stadium more cheaply than we would be able to get it elsewhere. If, like Rich, you think we WOULD get a comparable or better new stadium as cheap as this in the city, I would strongly support it. Do you think it is possible? Any ideas where and with whom?"
You seem to be working under the false premise that Tesco are the only company capable of engineering large developments, and/or that they have to be out of town. Then, you are also adopting the starting point that EFC needs 50,000 NEW seats regardless of location, when NO stadium master planner would advocate out of town ahead of inner city, especially in a 2 team city..... and all in the complete absence of any evidence for demand for such. Fact is £80m could buy EFC a hell of a lot of redevelopment, new capacity and new facilities...... if it can build a 50,000 seater stadium, it can easily bring GP upto that capacity and all without the loss of history/identity..... What value would you put on that? All without the farcical transport gamble too. EFC haven?t even been able to demonstrate how they can fund DK..... Why haven?t they commisioned HOK/AFL, or whoever to assess redevelopment options and not just Tesco?s architects who they asked several months after the vote?
"You repeat again the claim that Kenwright this time will make ?3-5? times the value of his investment by going to Kirkby. As I have said many times on here, you are directly contradicting yourself. You do not believe that fans are even going to be able to get to the ground - so why would someone come along and pay Bill so much for such an obviously disastrous business? Please don?t tell me that like some other posters on here you believe that the value of a business is not connected to its future success or profitability (if so I?d like to sell you an old car of mine which doesn?t actually go but has a net book value of £5,000)."
Where is the contradiction? The guy who bought Newcastle was a very successful and wealthy businessman..... do you think he really thought that one through, or was that just a bad day at the office for him? How successful has he been in making it work or in off-loading it since? Believe it or not even supposedly great businessmen make a hash of it every now and then..... recent news is full of them! Packaging EFC as saleable doesn?t necessarily equate to making EFC or their new stadium successful.
"what we are getting by being part of the Kirkby proposal is the opportunity to get a stadium for a spend from us whose latest estimate is £80M. Cutting through all the crap and complexity, it?s really as simple as that. Of course, Tesco is not ?giving us? £50M or anything crazy like that. We are just getting a stadium more cheaply than we would be able to get it elsewhere. If, like Rich, you think we WOULD get a comparable or better new stadium as cheap as this in the city, I would strongly support it. Do you think it is possible? Any ideas where and with whom?"
You seem to be working under the false premise that Tesco are the only company capable of engineering large developments, and/or that they have to be out of town. Then, you are also adopting the starting point that EFC needs 50,000 NEW seats regardless of location, when NO stadium master planner would advocate out of town ahead of inner city, especially in a 2 team city..... and all in the complete absence of any evidence for demand for such. Fact is £80m could buy EFC a hell of a lot of redevelopment, new capacity and new facilities...... if it can build a 50,000 seater stadium, it can easily bring GP upto that capacity and all without the loss of history/identity..... What value would you put on that? All without the farcical transport gamble too. EFC haven?t even been able to demonstrate how they can fund DK..... Why haven?t they commisioned HOK/AFL, or whoever to assess redevelopment options and not just Tesco?s architects who they asked several months after the vote?
"You repeat again the claim that Kenwright this time will make ?3-5? times the value of his investment by going to Kirkby. As I have said many times on here, you are directly contradicting yourself. You do not believe that fans are even going to be able to get to the ground - so why would someone come along and pay Bill so much for such an obviously disastrous business? Please don?t tell me that like some other posters on here you believe that the value of a business is not connected to its future success or profitability (if so I?d like to sell you an old car of mine which doesn?t actually go but has a net book value of £5,000)."
Where is the contradiction? The guy who bought Newcastle was a very successful and wealthy businessman..... do you think he really thought that one through, or was that just a bad day at the office for him? How successful has he been in making it work or in off-loading it since? Believe it or not even supposedly great businessmen make a hash of it every now and then..... recent news is full of them! Packaging EFC as saleable doesn?t necessarily equate to making EFC or their new stadium successful.
Not like KEIOC to keep everyone distracted and keep everyone's attention from their ?sterling performance? in front of the inspectors the other day ? lol!!!
It was ho-larious ? here?s just a sample of the delicacies that were on offer...
1) Skempton was forced to admit that the very small cash and carry site was put forward partly for the purposes of the ballot ? oops...
2) Skempton agreed that LCC couldn?t offer a site to Everton with the necessary enabling funding ? oops...
3) As for Transport ?wizard? David Thompson ? it helps when you want to make YOUR OPINION about bad transport issues to have Merseytravel and the Highways Agency as backup ? oops. Merseytravel and the Highways Agency didn't object to DK and Merseytravel think the plan is acceptable ? damn pesky officialdom getting in the way of things...
4) The impressive Mr Clarkson (THE star of the inquiry) asked if there had been a follow up to the ?rushed? (for the ballot) HOK report ? the answer was ?No!? - oops...
5) Mr Clarkson asked if any costing had taken place ? Skempton replied £200m-£230m ? so much more expensive than Kirkby for no further increase in capacity ? oops...
6) "Costing by who?" asked Mr Clarkson of Skempton... Skempton couldn't supply ANY evidence for those figures ? I noticed a smile and a wink from inspector to Clarkson at that point ? oops...
7) Skempton went on to say it could actually be EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE than the £200m-£230m figures ? oops...
8) Mr Clarkson bought up the ho-larious Birkenhead site that KEIOC (Keep Everton IN OUR CITY - lol!!!) used in their evidence as ?better than Kirkby? ? I glanced over at the Inspector, couldn't stop giggling at the Birkenhead suggestion - oops...
9) Skempton thinks LFC?s stadium plans are for 70,000 when they ARE in fact for 60,000. ALL three of their applications have been for 60,000 (as Clarkson said), LFC would have to put in a NEW planning application if they wanted to go beyond 60,000 which they haven't done yet ? the RS aspiring for 70,000+ eventually is irrelevant ? oops...
10) There was a ?pincer? movement at the start involving Inspector Jackson (Nice man!) and Patrick Clarkson; first of all Inspector Jackson warned KEIOC in no uncertain terms that any evidence that wasn't relevant wouldn't be given time by the inquiry ? oops Mr Grayson lol!!!
A fine day indeed. :)
As for the Grange residents stuff, I and I suspect most Evertonians are delighted we are moving to an area near homes, homes which scousers live in. It makes my skin crawl the thought we might move to the edge of a town somewhere, way up the waterfront away from the three graces or in the middle of an industrial estate just so that we can "be away from residents". Almost all of the "better" alternatives suggested by KEIOC have us located.... wait for it... it's worth it... it's coming... located near residents ? but I suppose "thats alright then".
I will enjoy the feeble attempts to put out the fires with glee...
It was ho-larious ? here?s just a sample of the delicacies that were on offer...
1) Skempton was forced to admit that the very small cash and carry site was put forward partly for the purposes of the ballot ? oops...
2) Skempton agreed that LCC couldn?t offer a site to Everton with the necessary enabling funding ? oops...
3) As for Transport ?wizard? David Thompson ? it helps when you want to make YOUR OPINION about bad transport issues to have Merseytravel and the Highways Agency as backup ? oops. Merseytravel and the Highways Agency didn't object to DK and Merseytravel think the plan is acceptable ? damn pesky officialdom getting in the way of things...
4) The impressive Mr Clarkson (THE star of the inquiry) asked if there had been a follow up to the ?rushed? (for the ballot) HOK report ? the answer was ?No!? - oops...
5) Mr Clarkson asked if any costing had taken place ? Skempton replied £200m-£230m ? so much more expensive than Kirkby for no further increase in capacity ? oops...
6) "Costing by who?" asked Mr Clarkson of Skempton... Skempton couldn't supply ANY evidence for those figures ? I noticed a smile and a wink from inspector to Clarkson at that point ? oops...
7) Skempton went on to say it could actually be EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE than the £200m-£230m figures ? oops...
8) Mr Clarkson bought up the ho-larious Birkenhead site that KEIOC (Keep Everton IN OUR CITY - lol!!!) used in their evidence as ?better than Kirkby? ? I glanced over at the Inspector, couldn't stop giggling at the Birkenhead suggestion - oops...
9) Skempton thinks LFC?s stadium plans are for 70,000 when they ARE in fact for 60,000. ALL three of their applications have been for 60,000 (as Clarkson said), LFC would have to put in a NEW planning application if they wanted to go beyond 60,000 which they haven't done yet ? the RS aspiring for 70,000+ eventually is irrelevant ? oops...
10) There was a ?pincer? movement at the start involving Inspector Jackson (Nice man!) and Patrick Clarkson; first of all Inspector Jackson warned KEIOC in no uncertain terms that any evidence that wasn't relevant wouldn't be given time by the inquiry ? oops Mr Grayson lol!!!
A fine day indeed. :)
As for the Grange residents stuff, I and I suspect most Evertonians are delighted we are moving to an area near homes, homes which scousers live in. It makes my skin crawl the thought we might move to the edge of a town somewhere, way up the waterfront away from the three graces or in the middle of an industrial estate just so that we can "be away from residents". Almost all of the "better" alternatives suggested by KEIOC have us located.... wait for it... it's worth it... it's coming... located near residents ? but I suppose "thats alright then".
I will enjoy the feeble attempts to put out the fires with glee...
Rupert... hmmmm, now who could that style of writing belong to? Mocking... ill-informed... ignorant of the facts... misinformation... a wink from the inspector? Don?t make me laugh.
Getting the capacity of LFC?s application wrong? I don?t think so, Trevor was invited to blow the appellants misinformation out of the water by Mrs Burden and he?s done so. It?s now on doc?s list if you care to read. Mr Clarkson will be having a word with the person who fed him that particular gem, don?t think he welcomes being made a fool of.
Answers on a post card for who "Rupert" is.
Bloody Hell!! Rupert where did you come from? I'll have nightmares about you for fucking days.
TW Rupert I can recall some verry embarresing days for the applicants during there cross-examination "15 million fans world wide" indeed (Elstone).
TW Rupert I can recall some verry embarresing days for the applicants during there cross-examination "15 million fans world wide" indeed (Elstone).
Just a point on the Loop. As I undertand, and I could be wrong, but the land was offered FOC by Bestway. Our EX cheif excec said "A 50,000 staduim could be built but there but there would be no room for enlagement of the stadium." He said this after KEIOC and a stadium designer proved this to be the case.
First off, where would we get an extra 10,000+ fans in Kirkby. Second, I am sure I read on this site that due to transport issues the stadium in DK could be fixed at 40,000 during the recent investigation.
So if we only have a stadium of 40,000 why move? We are told by BK that Goodison renovated would only hold 40,000. Also we would generate only another £6M a year in DK. Local residents have been told we wont be able to hold EXTRA activities such as concerts.
The Loop could hold 10,000 more fans in a more central location and therefore generate more than £6M.
Along with due to the location concerts etc would not be an issue.
Personally the figures don't add up to me. Somethings rotten in the state of Walton!
First off, where would we get an extra 10,000+ fans in Kirkby. Second, I am sure I read on this site that due to transport issues the stadium in DK could be fixed at 40,000 during the recent investigation.
So if we only have a stadium of 40,000 why move? We are told by BK that Goodison renovated would only hold 40,000. Also we would generate only another £6M a year in DK. Local residents have been told we wont be able to hold EXTRA activities such as concerts.
The Loop could hold 10,000 more fans in a more central location and therefore generate more than £6M.
Along with due to the location concerts etc would not be an issue.
Personally the figures don't add up to me. Somethings rotten in the state of Walton!
Rupert Tarlington??? So can we take it you were there?
BTW, Is that the same Trevor Skempton who was the consultant architect for the Grosvenor development? You know... the £Billion city centre development that exists, and is real and has won all kinds of plaudits already etc? Is that the same guy who was city architect for both Newcastle and Birmingham during their massive and highly successful transitions?
Thank god for that then... For a minute there, I thought you were talking about someone who doesn?t know his stuff and/or isn?t a massive blue.
BTW, were you also there when Mr Elstone had to answer Colin?s questioning? Wasn?t too great was it? And have you seen the recent polls regarding DK on ToffeeWeb..... can?t even muster 10% support nowadays!!
BTW, Is that the same Trevor Skempton who was the consultant architect for the Grosvenor development? You know... the £Billion city centre development that exists, and is real and has won all kinds of plaudits already etc? Is that the same guy who was city architect for both Newcastle and Birmingham during their massive and highly successful transitions?
Thank god for that then... For a minute there, I thought you were talking about someone who doesn?t know his stuff and/or isn?t a massive blue.
BTW, were you also there when Mr Elstone had to answer Colin?s questioning? Wasn?t too great was it? And have you seen the recent polls regarding DK on ToffeeWeb..... can?t even muster 10% support nowadays!!
Neil, There are no reasons left on the table to go.
£10 million a year extra revenue ? now £6 we?re told.
55,000 ? now 40,000
Best transport facillities in the country ? now no transport infastructure and crush loaded on trains.
You're right, Neil ? it stinks!!
£10 million a year extra revenue ? now £6 we?re told.
55,000 ? now 40,000
Best transport facillities in the country ? now no transport infastructure and crush loaded on trains.
You're right, Neil ? it stinks!!
He wasn?t there Tom, we know everyone who attends, no Rupert or anyone else there we didn?t know on Wednesday. For the record, I thought it was a disgrace how Trevor was treated but he handled the provocation very well, very well indeed.
Mr Clarkson is a great performer but he?s only as good as the information he?s given, he?s ended up making a fool of himself over Liverpool?s capacity requirements. The inspector now has the correct information, making the appellants cross-examination look slightly foolish.
Mr Clarkson is a great performer but he?s only as good as the information he?s given, he?s ended up making a fool of himself over Liverpool?s capacity requirements. The inspector now has the correct information, making the appellants cross-examination look slightly foolish.
I?m an exiled blue and a layman on all planning stuff, but in my opinion the Grange Residents evidence is not compelling when I?ve read that the Inspector was recently at a Goodison match.
Won't she have seen how close the housing there is to Goodison? Very much closer than the housing in Kirkby will be to our new ground...
Won't she have seen how close the housing there is to Goodison? Very much closer than the housing in Kirkby will be to our new ground...
I can see that myself here in the US of A, plus there?s much more housing nearer to Goodison than can ever be in Kirkby. Add LFC just around the corner into the mix and I doubt the inspector would have took a favourable view of our old ground and its location despite our love for it.
The best answer in my opinion would be Walton Hall Park, keeps us near our roots, and not too far from a community.
Hello Paul,
The difference being is that the football stadium has been there since 1892. When the Grange residents bought their homes, they had an urban green space a the side and school playing fields behind.
The difference being is that the football stadium has been there since 1892. When the Grange residents bought their homes, they had an urban green space a the side and school playing fields behind.
Just to add to my earlier post;
While I never wanted to move to DK it was not due to any one point it was due to a few. The main point being If the stadium was as good as the one portrayed at Kings Dock. For me that would be fine. After all we have played at 3 grounds before Goodison and won trophies before Goodison. At one time Goodison was the best stadium in the country. If we have a mediocre stadium to start with, it will never be much more. A medium stadium won't hold semi-finals. won't be part of World Cup/ Euro Cup games.
While I never wanted to move to DK it was not due to any one point it was due to a few. The main point being If the stadium was as good as the one portrayed at Kings Dock. For me that would be fine. After all we have played at 3 grounds before Goodison and won trophies before Goodison. At one time Goodison was the best stadium in the country. If we have a mediocre stadium to start with, it will never be much more. A medium stadium won't hold semi-finals. won't be part of World Cup/ Euro Cup games.
As a business man coming to the Northwest for a conference interested in football, where would you (imagine your a neutral fan) hold it? Old Trafford or Eastlands Nr Manchester. The New/Old Anal-field in Liverpool... or in the middle of nowhere (relatively compared to the citys of Liverpool and Manchester) in a small town of Kirkby???
It's not a case of if you build it they will come. Because there are better locations to go to nearer better hotels sites to visit and see. We were the 2008 Euro Capital of Culture. People will want to visit the city ? not Kirkby. We will not generate the profits. Unless the stadium is twice as good as others in the area we won't get much in corporate business simply cos of location and other options available to businesses who simply want to entertain and give their customers the best day out.
Hi Paul,
As an alternative answer to what Colin gave you here?s mine...
A football stadium being here or there since 1892 or from 2011 is an irrelevance. The inspector would have noted how many more people are much closer to Goodison with the added ?bonus? of LFC nearby too, she would have a heart of stone in my opinion (I?m sure she doesnt ;) ) if she didn't feel for the thousands of beleagured residents around a chunk of North Liverpool who have to put up with football chaos around antiquated stadiums/infrastructure 55 or more times a year! Also, when the Grange residents bought their homes they had land associated with a school behind them (not a public park) and contaminated former landfill space to the side. ;)
As an alternative answer to what Colin gave you here?s mine...
A football stadium being here or there since 1892 or from 2011 is an irrelevance. The inspector would have noted how many more people are much closer to Goodison with the added ?bonus? of LFC nearby too, she would have a heart of stone in my opinion (I?m sure she doesnt ;) ) if she didn't feel for the thousands of beleagured residents around a chunk of North Liverpool who have to put up with football chaos around antiquated stadiums/infrastructure 55 or more times a year! Also, when the Grange residents bought their homes they had land associated with a school behind them (not a public park) and contaminated former landfill space to the side. ;)
Thanks for your explanations Colin and ?Rupert?. If you don't mind I won't be taking any sides.
I was reading about the inquiry on the OS and this alarms me from day 31;
"The day began with John Barrett, counsel for Knowsley Council, confirming that progress had been made with Sefton council on an agreement to deal with the Kirkby Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) as it encroached on Sefton's area. This agreement would be separate to the Section 106 agreement and would address the concerns of the Combined Authorities Objectors (CAO) on who will pay for and administer any CPZ in Sefton".
So If Sefton and the other authorities don't think DK can or should go ahead then why are they coming to agreements now? And during the inquiry in front of the Inspectors? Surely they should be waiting for a final decision. Can they sense which way the wind is blowing I wonder?
I was reading about the inquiry on the OS and this alarms me from day 31;
"The day began with John Barrett, counsel for Knowsley Council, confirming that progress had been made with Sefton council on an agreement to deal with the Kirkby Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) as it encroached on Sefton's area. This agreement would be separate to the Section 106 agreement and would address the concerns of the Combined Authorities Objectors (CAO) on who will pay for and administer any CPZ in Sefton".
So If Sefton and the other authorities don't think DK can or should go ahead then why are they coming to agreements now? And during the inquiry in front of the Inspectors? Surely they should be waiting for a final decision. Can they sense which way the wind is blowing I wonder?
Exactly what Clanger was Gerry Digman referring to?
Was it that KEI OUR City actually suggested taking the club over the water?
What in hells name was that all about?
Was it that KEI OUR City actually suggested taking the club over the water?
What in hells name was that all about?
Paul,
What you are inferring is that because Goodison is currently close to houses that the same can exist in Kirkby. Planning doesn?t work like this. Goodison Park secured planning to have its stands built to their heights decades, indeed generations ago. What already exists does not have to be compliant to new planning regs in this instance... what is proposed does!
What you are inferring is that because Goodison is currently close to houses that the same can exist in Kirkby. Planning doesn?t work like this. Goodison Park secured planning to have its stands built to their heights decades, indeed generations ago. What already exists does not have to be compliant to new planning regs in this instance... what is proposed does!
The Grange residents did not buy their homes with a footy stadium on their doorstep... they were omitted from the planning/consultation process for that reason... a common ploy where awkward issues are encountered.
Let the scheme gain momentum before the protests start! Same can be applied to the multitude of other omissions and deceptions applied to this process... only after the vote have they all fizzled away to nothing.
?And have you seen the recent polls regarding DK on ToffeeWeb..... can?t even muster 10% support nowadays!!?
That?s a TW poll Tom, not an Everton fans poll. There are obviously thousands upon thousands who don?t use TW. Only a small percentage of fans use the site/voted.
Basically, most TW users are against Kirkby, not most Everton fans.
That?s a TW poll Tom, not an Everton fans poll. There are obviously thousands upon thousands who don?t use TW. Only a small percentage of fans use the site/voted.
Basically, most TW users are against Kirkby, not most Everton fans.
What i dont get about DK is the fact that we are told it will generate an extra £6 mill a year.
We are also told its going to cost us £80 mill to build.
We know we currently have no spare cash.
We havnt got any money for players as it is.
How long is it going to take to pay back that £80 million?OK we will get some money for GP and naming rights but surely we are going to be in a worse finnancial posistion for at least 10 years.I just dont understand the logic.
We are also told its going to cost us £80 mill to build.
We know we currently have no spare cash.
We havnt got any money for players as it is.
How long is it going to take to pay back that £80 million?OK we will get some money for GP and naming rights but surely we are going to be in a worse finnancial posistion for at least 10 years.I just dont understand the logic.
Jay Harris spot on its a disaster ,as for believing in Bill? if he said it was raining I Would look out the window to check ,yet a mate who like me has 50 years of going to games thinks Bill is misunderstood???? if it was in a book you would not believe it.
Having read Nick?s comments just thought I?d throw some economics into the debate.
The £80 million being put forward as the stadium cost to EFC is reliant on EFC getting c £50 million in retailing cross-subsidies which IMO in the current financial climate will be difficult to achieve.
We are all bandying about figures which nobody really knows ? not even EFC FFS. However, we can say with reasonable accuracy that it will cost around £3 million to decontaminate the "Free" land (Everton?s own expert) which wont belong to us ? we will be paying to lease it.
Also, based on recent minimum costs for a new stadium, we can say it will cost at least £2,500 per seat, which does approximate the £130 million being put about... So let's say we do get £50 million in retail cross-subsidies and it only costs us £80 million (which I personally believe is highly optimistic). Now how do we fund that?
Well GP (contrary to some people's thoughts) is mortgaged to the tune of £15 milion and is rumoured to be worth about £13 million before the current economic climate decline... so no contribution there then. Bellefield cannot get PP so is worth very little.
Naming rights, excluding shirt sponsors, which we already have, have been estimated at about £2 million a year for a maximum of 7 years.
Now interest charges for a "Club with no money" and already mortgaged to the hilt will IMO be between £6 and £10 million a year for the life of the loan.
Now I think it?s a reasonable assumption to say any potential crowd increase (curiosity or new fans) will be offset by those unable or unwiiling to go... so let's say attendances will not increase.
Corporate hospitality: Even Neil Pearse would have to agree that corporate income will be difficult to generate in Kirkby but we may help Liverpool to increase their?s so maybe they?ll give us some commission!!
So that leaves the only opportunity to turn loss making interest charges into a profit as being a huge hike in ticket prices, which IMO will drive even more fans away but let's say we maintain that...
For example at 36,000 for every game (our average of 36,000 at GP) based on 20 games a season at home would generate about £6 million a year extra based on a ticket increase of about 20% and take that with the extra car parking/transport costs would be enough to drive even more supporters away.
So just to summarise:
EFC will be up to its neck in debt for a long time and there is little if any financial gain.
The £80 million being put forward as the stadium cost to EFC is reliant on EFC getting c £50 million in retailing cross-subsidies which IMO in the current financial climate will be difficult to achieve.
We are all bandying about figures which nobody really knows ? not even EFC FFS. However, we can say with reasonable accuracy that it will cost around £3 million to decontaminate the "Free" land (Everton?s own expert) which wont belong to us ? we will be paying to lease it.
Also, based on recent minimum costs for a new stadium, we can say it will cost at least £2,500 per seat, which does approximate the £130 million being put about... So let's say we do get £50 million in retail cross-subsidies and it only costs us £80 million (which I personally believe is highly optimistic). Now how do we fund that?
Well GP (contrary to some people's thoughts) is mortgaged to the tune of £15 milion and is rumoured to be worth about £13 million before the current economic climate decline... so no contribution there then. Bellefield cannot get PP so is worth very little.
Naming rights, excluding shirt sponsors, which we already have, have been estimated at about £2 million a year for a maximum of 7 years.
Now interest charges for a "Club with no money" and already mortgaged to the hilt will IMO be between £6 and £10 million a year for the life of the loan.
Now I think it?s a reasonable assumption to say any potential crowd increase (curiosity or new fans) will be offset by those unable or unwiiling to go... so let's say attendances will not increase.
Corporate hospitality: Even Neil Pearse would have to agree that corporate income will be difficult to generate in Kirkby but we may help Liverpool to increase their?s so maybe they?ll give us some commission!!
So that leaves the only opportunity to turn loss making interest charges into a profit as being a huge hike in ticket prices, which IMO will drive even more fans away but let's say we maintain that...
For example at 36,000 for every game (our average of 36,000 at GP) based on 20 games a season at home would generate about £6 million a year extra based on a ticket increase of about 20% and take that with the extra car parking/transport costs would be enough to drive even more supporters away.
So just to summarise:
- Interest cost ? between £6 to £10 million
- Naming rights ? about £2 million (limited lifespan too)
- Possibly £6 million extra gate receipts.
EFC will be up to its neck in debt for a long time and there is little if any financial gain.
I?m fucking sick of you moaners on here! Can?t you see what we?re getting?
A virtually free world class stadium, an extra 10 - 15 ,000 fans a year, the best transport links in the whole of the prem, enough money each year to buy world class players. A chairman who is a true, whiter-than-white Blue.
Why don?t the lot of you wake up, and realise how lucky we are?
A virtually free world class stadium, an extra 10 - 15 ,000 fans a year, the best transport links in the whole of the prem, enough money each year to buy world class players. A chairman who is a true, whiter-than-white Blue.
Why don?t the lot of you wake up, and realise how lucky we are?
Personally I couldn?t care less if the tranasport?s not up to scratch.
Well said Brian but you forgot "Black Bill" telling us to "watch this space" for us to get Kaka out of the increased profits.
Erm, my last comment only made sense when signed off as "Mohamed".
Just on a few points in response.
Tom, on why and how Kenwright will make a killing, your answer comes down to: ’some very rich but moron of a businessman, much less smart and informed than most posters on Toffeeweb, will not do any sensible due diligence on Kirkby or Everton’s future financial prospects, and will simply give Bill the huge sum he asks for’’. You can believe that if you want, I choose not to.
On Kirkby versus the Loop, since Trever Skempton is on record now as saying that it the latter would cost more than £200M, perhaps a lot more, I think it is very safe to assume that, whatever you think of the site, we can’t afford it.
The idea, especially in the current financial meltdown, that Bestway is a better retail partner than Tesco, is so transparently silly that it hardly merits comment.
Tom, on why and how Kenwright will make a killing, your answer comes down to: ’some very rich but moron of a businessman, much less smart and informed than most posters on Toffeeweb, will not do any sensible due diligence on Kirkby or Everton’s future financial prospects, and will simply give Bill the huge sum he asks for’’. You can believe that if you want, I choose not to.
On Kirkby versus the Loop, since Trever Skempton is on record now as saying that it the latter would cost more than £200M, perhaps a lot more, I think it is very safe to assume that, whatever you think of the site, we can’t afford it.
The idea, especially in the current financial meltdown, that Bestway is a better retail partner than Tesco, is so transparently silly that it hardly merits comment.
Neil,
As with all the broken promises..... It appears you choose to believe very selectively. I gave an example of one very wealthy businessman who did precisely what you choose not to believe in regarding football clubs..... who bought into a very well packaged product, that he can’t get rid of now. Similar could perhaps be said about our Yankee friends. Kirkby is a cosmetic packaging of Everton FC to increase its apparent value while at the same time satisfying BK’s backers. They get their investment back and their shops in a place that contravenes all planning legislation. Like they said..... deal of the century. We still pay 80-90% of the construction costs of the new stadium....(practically nothing) in a place we can’t get to easily(most accessible stadium in the UK). We get sold for several times are current real share value. Why doesn’t BK sell now at the current share value or less (As PJ did?) to entice someone with real clout who can address the stadium issue with the club as the real driver? Could it because he is beholdent to his backers, and owes them bigtime?
Trevor Skempton’s scheme for the Loop is for a far more ambitious plan than DK, so you are not really comparing like for like. One is for 4 identical basic stands, his involves sliding roof and pitch and proper multi-tier configuration to gain maximimum benefit from multi-use given the location. As we saw at the Kings Dock, enabling projects at downtown sites release far greater funds than out of town retail schemes where multi-storey is not an option. Kings Dock was going to be 90% funded by enabling derived from a much smaller plot than Kirkby because the development was far more valueable, whereas DK’s mythical enabling has in effect generated nothing.
As with all the broken promises..... It appears you choose to believe very selectively. I gave an example of one very wealthy businessman who did precisely what you choose not to believe in regarding football clubs..... who bought into a very well packaged product, that he can’t get rid of now. Similar could perhaps be said about our Yankee friends. Kirkby is a cosmetic packaging of Everton FC to increase its apparent value while at the same time satisfying BK’s backers. They get their investment back and their shops in a place that contravenes all planning legislation. Like they said..... deal of the century. We still pay 80-90% of the construction costs of the new stadium....(practically nothing) in a place we can’t get to easily(most accessible stadium in the UK). We get sold for several times are current real share value. Why doesn’t BK sell now at the current share value or less (As PJ did?) to entice someone with real clout who can address the stadium issue with the club as the real driver? Could it because he is beholdent to his backers, and owes them bigtime?
Trevor Skempton’s scheme for the Loop is for a far more ambitious plan than DK, so you are not really comparing like for like. One is for 4 identical basic stands, his involves sliding roof and pitch and proper multi-tier configuration to gain maximimum benefit from multi-use given the location. As we saw at the Kings Dock, enabling projects at downtown sites release far greater funds than out of town retail schemes where multi-storey is not an option. Kings Dock was going to be 90% funded by enabling derived from a much smaller plot than Kirkby because the development was far more valueable, whereas DK’s mythical enabling has in effect generated nothing.
Tom, we continue! On the idiot investors, remember what I am countering here is your and many others? claims that Kenwright is taking us to Kirkby PRIMARILY (solely?) to make money for himself. So he has to be pretty certain that Kirkby wll ?land the sucker investor?.
Given that (a) the first item on any buyer?s agenda will be ?what?s the impact of this Kirkby move then??, and (b) to you and most other ToffeeWeb posters it is OBVIOUS that Kirkby will be the financial ruin of the club ? well, you are assuming some really really dumb rich person out there! (And not at all comparable to Liverpool or Newcastle ? neither of which I assume you think is about to collapse financially?)
On the Loop, I am absolutely sure and totally agree with you that a £200M+ stadium in the centre of town is more "ambitious" than Kirkby. Just like a BMW is faster than a Golf ? and I?d much prefer to have one. But I can?t afford a BMW, and Everton can?t afford a £200M+ stadium (even with some more enabling development ? if it existed in a now highly developed town centre at the height of a recession).
You might not have noticed but in the recent transfer window we couldn?t even afford to buy a single player. Tom, we are poor! I want exactly what you want ? the best possible ground for our club generating increased income and attracting a potential real investor (not your village idiot). I wish we?d bought Lennon, Love and Moutinho in January. But wishing doesn?t make it so. And fantasising about ambitious grounds in the city don?t make them possible either.
Given that (a) the first item on any buyer?s agenda will be ?what?s the impact of this Kirkby move then??, and (b) to you and most other ToffeeWeb posters it is OBVIOUS that Kirkby will be the financial ruin of the club ? well, you are assuming some really really dumb rich person out there! (And not at all comparable to Liverpool or Newcastle ? neither of which I assume you think is about to collapse financially?)
On the Loop, I am absolutely sure and totally agree with you that a £200M+ stadium in the centre of town is more "ambitious" than Kirkby. Just like a BMW is faster than a Golf ? and I?d much prefer to have one. But I can?t afford a BMW, and Everton can?t afford a £200M+ stadium (even with some more enabling development ? if it existed in a now highly developed town centre at the height of a recession).
You might not have noticed but in the recent transfer window we couldn?t even afford to buy a single player. Tom, we are poor! I want exactly what you want ? the best possible ground for our club generating increased income and attracting a potential real investor (not your village idiot). I wish we?d bought Lennon, Love and Moutinho in January. But wishing doesn?t make it so. And fantasising about ambitious grounds in the city don?t make them possible either.
Neil,
Your point about how poor we are just points us back to where we are going to get the £80M (plus some)... which many were saying before we arrived at the current recession (or Credit Crunch if that makes it more palatable).
Surely it makes more sense to use a proportion of that money to develop what we have ? for significantly less than £80k you?d get someone to clear up all that dog shit which has put some people off remaining at GP!
Your point about how poor we are just points us back to where we are going to get the £80M (plus some)... which many were saying before we arrived at the current recession (or Credit Crunch if that makes it more palatable).
Surely it makes more sense to use a proportion of that money to develop what we have ? for significantly less than £80k you?d get someone to clear up all that dog shit which has put some people off remaining at GP!
Chad, I agree that we might not even be able to afford Kirkby now. Perhaps the point I have made most often in the past 18 months or so here is that we cannot afford anything more ? which of course is why we are not seriously exploring other much more expensive options in the city.
I do think in our current financial situation our only other option is to stay at GP (unless ? my preferred option ? we could somehow get a ground share going). But radically revamping GP (moving stands, acquiring housing etc) wouldn?t cost much if any less than Kirkby ? unfortunately I think we talking about far more than clearing up the dog shit to make a real difference!
I?ve never much liked the idea of being almost literally in the shadow of the new RS monstrosity on Stanley Park (if it ever gets built). I think we would really look the poor relation then. But this may be my personal emotional thing.
I do think in our current financial situation our only other option is to stay at GP (unless ? my preferred option ? we could somehow get a ground share going). But radically revamping GP (moving stands, acquiring housing etc) wouldn?t cost much if any less than Kirkby ? unfortunately I think we talking about far more than clearing up the dog shit to make a real difference!
I?ve never much liked the idea of being almost literally in the shadow of the new RS monstrosity on Stanley Park (if it ever gets built). I think we would really look the poor relation then. But this may be my personal emotional thing.
Neil,
Where have I mentioned idiot businessmen? Is that where the whole pro-Kirkby argument is now?Essentially you are clinging to a byproduct of the whole debate..... my digression about motives, and hypothetical selling-on scenarios allowed you to getaway from the main issues regarding the process to date and what is on offer now, especially ignoring how that compares to at the time of the vote etc. That said, I still find it laughable to extol the virtues of the wise businessman at the moment, and especially with regard to football clubs when so many multi-millionaires have come a cropper buying into them. Regardless of whether you believe that my assessment is right or wrong, Kirkby’s misgivings are still obvious and glaring!
If you don’t like the level of ambition shown by Trevor Skempton..... remembering that Kings Dock was a £300m development that managed to self-generate all but £30m, as opposed to DK which realised precisely what in enabling terms........? you might then want to comment some more on the definition of fantasy. Perhaps you could start with the headline promises at the time of the vote, or the notion that we will fill more seats at a location with a fraction of the public transport at an out of town site which contradicts all modern stadium planning philosophy. Your assessment of Liverpool’s redevelopment avoids to mention the affect that a competing development will have on what is already existing, nor the fact that the DK retail requires a catchment of 300k when Kirkby only has a population of 40k..... all in times of recession!
Alternatively, Why haven’t you advocated the construction of an £80-100m stadium at the loop, given its vastly superior transport links and public transport capacity? You could then factor in a signifiacntly higher value due to relative economic multipliers (upto double for downtown stadia compared to out of town) that have helped render the out-of-town stadium model a thing of the past elsewhere.
Where have I mentioned idiot businessmen? Is that where the whole pro-Kirkby argument is now?Essentially you are clinging to a byproduct of the whole debate..... my digression about motives, and hypothetical selling-on scenarios allowed you to getaway from the main issues regarding the process to date and what is on offer now, especially ignoring how that compares to at the time of the vote etc. That said, I still find it laughable to extol the virtues of the wise businessman at the moment, and especially with regard to football clubs when so many multi-millionaires have come a cropper buying into them. Regardless of whether you believe that my assessment is right or wrong, Kirkby’s misgivings are still obvious and glaring!
If you don’t like the level of ambition shown by Trevor Skempton..... remembering that Kings Dock was a £300m development that managed to self-generate all but £30m, as opposed to DK which realised precisely what in enabling terms........? you might then want to comment some more on the definition of fantasy. Perhaps you could start with the headline promises at the time of the vote, or the notion that we will fill more seats at a location with a fraction of the public transport at an out of town site which contradicts all modern stadium planning philosophy. Your assessment of Liverpool’s redevelopment avoids to mention the affect that a competing development will have on what is already existing, nor the fact that the DK retail requires a catchment of 300k when Kirkby only has a population of 40k..... all in times of recession!
Alternatively, Why haven’t you advocated the construction of an £80-100m stadium at the loop, given its vastly superior transport links and public transport capacity? You could then factor in a signifiacntly higher value due to relative economic multipliers (upto double for downtown stadia compared to out of town) that have helped render the out-of-town stadium model a thing of the past elsewhere.
Tom, I would be really happy if we never have to talk about idiot businessmen again - it’s you who invent them so can you make the case that Kenwright is taking the club to Kirkby to line his own pockets. Not me! I don’t think he is. Anyway, I assume from now on you won’t continually contradict yourself by saying that what you think is an obvious financial disaster is going to make a financial killing for Kenwright. Good!
On to more serious matters then: if we could indeed build a stadium in the city for an amount of money we could actually afford (let’s say £80M for the sake of argument) - yes, I would be all in favour of it! Why wouldn’t I be? Why wouldn’t the Everton Board for that matter?
The issue all along has been whether such an option actually exists. That’s where we differ. Trevor Skempton apparently thinks that the only option we have ever really heard about - the Loop - would have a build cost of £250M or more (in the region of other comparable stadia). I would love to believe that we could secure over £150M of enabling investment to support us, but I doubt it. Especially in the current environment. You think we could.
So once we get rid of all the Kenwright hating silliness, I guess this is where we end up. I still of course think that the only truly sensible option is to share a ground on Stanley Park!
On to more serious matters then: if we could indeed build a stadium in the city for an amount of money we could actually afford (let’s say £80M for the sake of argument) - yes, I would be all in favour of it! Why wouldn’t I be? Why wouldn’t the Everton Board for that matter?
The issue all along has been whether such an option actually exists. That’s where we differ. Trevor Skempton apparently thinks that the only option we have ever really heard about - the Loop - would have a build cost of £250M or more (in the region of other comparable stadia). I would love to believe that we could secure over £150M of enabling investment to support us, but I doubt it. Especially in the current environment. You think we could.
So once we get rid of all the Kenwright hating silliness, I guess this is where we end up. I still of course think that the only truly sensible option is to share a ground on Stanley Park!
Neil,
You’re making stuff up now...... Where have I ever said "to line his own pockets?" I never have! Or when have I stated hatred for BK? I understand the argument for Kirkby is pretty threadbare nowadays, but best stick to the issues I think.....
My main point is that the new stadium increases the saleable value of the club, this does not necessarily equate to increased propensity for success. My other point is that he is beholden to his backers, he is not driving this project at all. It is the business model of the "Old pals act" on the "back of an envelope" which he has proffessed to many times before.... he may or may not make a profit on his holding, but only after he has paid back his investors who have underwrote firstly his acquisition of the club and then some subsequent signings. In return we are their enabler for DK (Yet we’re still paying to build our stadium in almost its entirety despite all the inferred benefits of Tesco’s wealth by you and others etc)! Nothing else, neither redevelopment, nor the Loop gets them back their investment directly nor more importantly their ultimate objective..... the shops..... hence the reason why we haven’t been allowed to consider anything else at ANY point in the whole process.
Where have I contradicted myself......? Moores made a massive killing selling to the Yanks..... doesn’t look like a great financial success for the new owners or the club now does it?
You’re making stuff up now...... Where have I ever said "to line his own pockets?" I never have! Or when have I stated hatred for BK? I understand the argument for Kirkby is pretty threadbare nowadays, but best stick to the issues I think.....
My main point is that the new stadium increases the saleable value of the club, this does not necessarily equate to increased propensity for success. My other point is that he is beholden to his backers, he is not driving this project at all. It is the business model of the "Old pals act" on the "back of an envelope" which he has proffessed to many times before.... he may or may not make a profit on his holding, but only after he has paid back his investors who have underwrote firstly his acquisition of the club and then some subsequent signings. In return we are their enabler for DK (Yet we’re still paying to build our stadium in almost its entirety despite all the inferred benefits of Tesco’s wealth by you and others etc)! Nothing else, neither redevelopment, nor the Loop gets them back their investment directly nor more importantly their ultimate objective..... the shops..... hence the reason why we haven’t been allowed to consider anything else at ANY point in the whole process.
Where have I contradicted myself......? Moores made a massive killing selling to the Yanks..... doesn’t look like a great financial success for the new owners or the club now does it?
Neil,
As far as Trevor’s only option, I think you will find that if you read his stuff, by far his preferred option is the redevelopment of Goodison which he has done far more work on. He however recognises that there are always options and that if this great club is ever going to move it needs to be to a superior site than its current one. Hence he did what EFC failed to do and looked at the options. As I said previously he was also the head consultant architect for the Liverpool one development so I suggest he has a firmer grip on the development scope of downtown sites. In our current status, and in the current financial climate, as at the time of the vote I still believe redevelopment to be the best way forward in addressing the real issues that have been intentionally fogged over by the whole process to date. EFC need to eradicate the obstructed views and add only a few thousand new high quality seats and exec boxes to satisfy the clubs needs in the medium to longterm. They need to do this at a site with proven infrastructure and high public transport capacity or whatever is built will be a complete white elephant and permanent millstone. This can be achieved most readily at GP, which with just new roof structures would already have approx 37,000 unobstructed seats (greater than our current average gate). This is a surely a much better starting point than trying to find £78m for a stadium in the sticks, that we cannot get to/from efficiently enough, which could end up costing us far more in every respect. Building one or 2 new stands and/or extending existing upper tiers can achieve this, preserving heritage and providing continuity, and furthermore it can be done in bitesize affordable chunks, testing demand as we go.
As far as Trevor’s only option, I think you will find that if you read his stuff, by far his preferred option is the redevelopment of Goodison which he has done far more work on. He however recognises that there are always options and that if this great club is ever going to move it needs to be to a superior site than its current one. Hence he did what EFC failed to do and looked at the options. As I said previously he was also the head consultant architect for the Liverpool one development so I suggest he has a firmer grip on the development scope of downtown sites. In our current status, and in the current financial climate, as at the time of the vote I still believe redevelopment to be the best way forward in addressing the real issues that have been intentionally fogged over by the whole process to date. EFC need to eradicate the obstructed views and add only a few thousand new high quality seats and exec boxes to satisfy the clubs needs in the medium to longterm. They need to do this at a site with proven infrastructure and high public transport capacity or whatever is built will be a complete white elephant and permanent millstone. This can be achieved most readily at GP, which with just new roof structures would already have approx 37,000 unobstructed seats (greater than our current average gate). This is a surely a much better starting point than trying to find £78m for a stadium in the sticks, that we cannot get to/from efficiently enough, which could end up costing us far more in every respect. Building one or 2 new stands and/or extending existing upper tiers can achieve this, preserving heritage and providing continuity, and furthermore it can be done in bitesize affordable chunks, testing demand as we go.
Tom, obviously it feels like we are going over pretty old ground here now. Just a few things.
Despite your claim that you want to stick to ’the issues’, you again can’t resist making very definite claims about Kenwright’s motivations (repaying his pals), while innocently claiming that I am the one dragging you into this stuff. Stop talking about Kenwright’s self-interested motivations and I promise you I will be glad to stop responding to your claims.
Like many posters here, you still seem to be believe that there is some "saleable value" of a business that actually is disconnected from the business’s perceived future prospects. (Clearly you’ve never sold anything to anybody.) Indeed, you seem to think that a business could (as in this case) have a very high saleable value even when it is obvious that its future is one of unremitting financial disaster. This is simply nonsense.
On the real issues - I am still not clear Tom whether you think we could afford any other new ground than Kirkby? Do we have more than £80M to plonk down? Could we get a new ground for that in the city? We might be in agreement on this, but I can’t tell since you confine yourself to generalities such as ’there must be other options’ (why?).
On GP, I think you are obviously right. Incrementally improving GP is a real option, and may even be what we end up doing. I personally doubt that we can afford the extent of transformation that will be required. And I doubt that it will attract the new investor we so desperately need. But, unlike Loop fantasies, it’s clearly a realistic option. No problem there.
Despite your claim that you want to stick to ’the issues’, you again can’t resist making very definite claims about Kenwright’s motivations (repaying his pals), while innocently claiming that I am the one dragging you into this stuff. Stop talking about Kenwright’s self-interested motivations and I promise you I will be glad to stop responding to your claims.
Like many posters here, you still seem to be believe that there is some "saleable value" of a business that actually is disconnected from the business’s perceived future prospects. (Clearly you’ve never sold anything to anybody.) Indeed, you seem to think that a business could (as in this case) have a very high saleable value even when it is obvious that its future is one of unremitting financial disaster. This is simply nonsense.
On the real issues - I am still not clear Tom whether you think we could afford any other new ground than Kirkby? Do we have more than £80M to plonk down? Could we get a new ground for that in the city? We might be in agreement on this, but I can’t tell since you confine yourself to generalities such as ’there must be other options’ (why?).
On GP, I think you are obviously right. Incrementally improving GP is a real option, and may even be what we end up doing. I personally doubt that we can afford the extent of transformation that will be required. And I doubt that it will attract the new investor we so desperately need. But, unlike Loop fantasies, it’s clearly a realistic option. No problem there.
I have to say Neil that I?m astounded that with all your financial expertize you claim to have and all the high net worth corporate advice you provide, you can?t afford a BMW mind you I have witnessed first-hand your, shall-we-say number crunching during these debates.
Neil,
Despite owning a small business and several properties I do not profess to be a business expert at all. However, this insistance that people buying footy clubs always get it right is laughable......
"Like many posters here, you still seem to be believe that there is some "saleable value" of a business that actually is disconnected from the business?s perceived future prospects. (Clearly you?ve never sold anything to anybody.) Indeed, you seem to think that a business could (as in this case) have a very high saleable value even when it is obvious that its future is one of unremitting financial disaster. This is simply nonsense."
Well packaged businesses, just like well presented houses or any products increase their saleable value. A brand new stadium, or even one with just planning permission will increase the club’s value. Hopefully public inquiries highlighting the transport farce etc will help stifle that process.
"On the real issues - I am still not clear Tom whether you think we could afford any other new ground than Kirkby? Do we have more than £80M to plonk down? Could we get a new ground for that in the city? We might be in agreement on this, but I can?t tell since you confine yourself to generalities such as ?there must be other options? (why?)."
Construction costs are precisley the same wherever you build in Liverpool. So therefore if you can afford £80m in Kirkby, you can elsewhere. If £30m could get you £300m stadium at Kings Dock, what could £80m do at The Loop or Everton or Kirkdale or any other central sizeable brownfield site? The problem is at the beginning we weren’t told we had £80m to play with as you well know. Why wasn’t it decalared at the time of the vote..... in fact weren’t we told time an again that we had nothing to contribute apart from naming rights and sale of assets? The reason for this is obvious, if they had declared this at the vote they wouldn’t have got a yes vote as shown in every poll since these figures were revealed such as:http://forums.liverpoolecho.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=38681P
"On GP, I think you are obviously right. Incrementally improving is a real option, and may even be what we end up doing. I personally doubt that we can afford the extent of transformation that will be required. And I doubt that it will attract the new investor we so desperately need."
So, more selective doubting. GP can have over 37k totally unobstructed seats by re-roofing alone, to then add 10-13,000 new unobstructed seats at 3-4k per seat (ie higher value seats than DK) could cost as little as £30-52m. Don’t believe me...... look at costs to expand both St James and SOL, and extrapolate for inflation, current cost of steel and equivalence of complexity. Alternatively replace the Park end with a new vast single tier that takes in the corner with the Bullens, and extends that stand in its upper tier placing boxes underneath....... Yes, there are always options. Where are EFC’s commissioned by independent architectural companies such as AFL the clubs traditional architects or HOK? They haven’t got them, and that to me is criminal!
"But, unlike Loop fantasies, it?s clearly a realistic option. No problem there. "
Can’t you see the irony in talking "fantasies" when not one of the pre-vote supporting descriptors for DK is still standing. Meanwhile a renowned architect and HOK the biggest stadium design company in the world argue its viability..... remember this gem: "The Loop’s not viable because we need a 75K stadium"...... now they are talking about having to limit capacity to 40k because the most accessible stadium in the uk isn’t very accessible at all. "Fantasies?" Where do you start The fundamentals aren’t even in sight!
Despite owning a small business and several properties I do not profess to be a business expert at all. However, this insistance that people buying footy clubs always get it right is laughable......
"Like many posters here, you still seem to be believe that there is some "saleable value" of a business that actually is disconnected from the business?s perceived future prospects. (Clearly you?ve never sold anything to anybody.) Indeed, you seem to think that a business could (as in this case) have a very high saleable value even when it is obvious that its future is one of unremitting financial disaster. This is simply nonsense."
Well packaged businesses, just like well presented houses or any products increase their saleable value. A brand new stadium, or even one with just planning permission will increase the club’s value. Hopefully public inquiries highlighting the transport farce etc will help stifle that process.
"On the real issues - I am still not clear Tom whether you think we could afford any other new ground than Kirkby? Do we have more than £80M to plonk down? Could we get a new ground for that in the city? We might be in agreement on this, but I can?t tell since you confine yourself to generalities such as ?there must be other options? (why?)."
Construction costs are precisley the same wherever you build in Liverpool. So therefore if you can afford £80m in Kirkby, you can elsewhere. If £30m could get you £300m stadium at Kings Dock, what could £80m do at The Loop or Everton or Kirkdale or any other central sizeable brownfield site? The problem is at the beginning we weren’t told we had £80m to play with as you well know. Why wasn’t it decalared at the time of the vote..... in fact weren’t we told time an again that we had nothing to contribute apart from naming rights and sale of assets? The reason for this is obvious, if they had declared this at the vote they wouldn’t have got a yes vote as shown in every poll since these figures were revealed such as:http://forums.liverpoolecho.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=38681P
"On GP, I think you are obviously right. Incrementally improving is a real option, and may even be what we end up doing. I personally doubt that we can afford the extent of transformation that will be required. And I doubt that it will attract the new investor we so desperately need."
So, more selective doubting. GP can have over 37k totally unobstructed seats by re-roofing alone, to then add 10-13,000 new unobstructed seats at 3-4k per seat (ie higher value seats than DK) could cost as little as £30-52m. Don’t believe me...... look at costs to expand both St James and SOL, and extrapolate for inflation, current cost of steel and equivalence of complexity. Alternatively replace the Park end with a new vast single tier that takes in the corner with the Bullens, and extends that stand in its upper tier placing boxes underneath....... Yes, there are always options. Where are EFC’s commissioned by independent architectural companies such as AFL the clubs traditional architects or HOK? They haven’t got them, and that to me is criminal!
"But, unlike Loop fantasies, it?s clearly a realistic option. No problem there. "
Can’t you see the irony in talking "fantasies" when not one of the pre-vote supporting descriptors for DK is still standing. Meanwhile a renowned architect and HOK the biggest stadium design company in the world argue its viability..... remember this gem: "The Loop’s not viable because we need a 75K stadium"...... now they are talking about having to limit capacity to 40k because the most accessible stadium in the uk isn’t very accessible at all. "Fantasies?" Where do you start The fundamentals aren’t even in sight!
Just an example Rich ? actually I drive around in a Rolls Royce (unfortunately not...). Shame again that all you can offer on here is snide comments. Good luck to all of us anyway for tomorrow!
Tom, I am tired and we have run this one into the ground!
You probably think the same of me, but on the ’Kenwright and his pals’ stuff I think you are simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again, basically: ’I can see that Kirkby will be an obvious financial disaster, but it will be so cleverly ’packaged’ that some very rich sport investor (much less smart than me) will pay way over the odds...’. Just think about it Tom!
If Kirkby is as much of an OBVIOUS disaster as you say it is, then it is a disaster. It is not then going to make anyone rich. You are not arguing Tom that Kirkby is subtly, secretly flawed, so that a reasonably smart businessman might make an understandable mistake. No, you are arguing that (I quote you) "the fundamentals aren’t even in sight". But yet there is going to be some very rich businessman SO blind that they will none the less pay way over the odds and make Bill and his pals really rich?
Actually what is really frustrating for me in countering this nonsense time and time again is that it does not even support your opposition to Kirkby. Why not go for the much simpler argument that the Everton Board have made a big mistake and Kirkby will be a disaster for the club? Of course then it will be a disaster for them too, and it will also have the very unpleasant consequence of deterring a new investor. This makes Kirkby EVEN WORSE. Why not argue this? My only conclusion can be that you hate Kenwright so much that you are more interested in him being evil than being wrong. I can’t think why else you wouldn’t just go for the much simpler and more powerful argument against Kirkby. You tell me Tom!
On the Loop and other sites in the city, I assume from what you say that you are now disagreeing with Trevor Skempton that a stadium on the Loop site would cost more than £200M to build? You think the Loop would cost the same as Kirkby, right?
Of course, as you well know, it DOES matter where a stadium is built, the nature and complexity of the site, the cost of the land, the amount of enabling investment etc. etc.. Stadiums don’t all cost exactly the same in total, even if the bits of steel that go into them do.
So Tom: do you think we could get a new stadium in the city for an outlay of as little as £80M or don’t you? I am still not clear.
On the redevelopment of GP, you yourself are now quoting numbers for relatively incomplete renovation in the £50M area. I think a lot of people on this site believe that utterly transforming GP can be achieved for much less than building Kirkby - you yourself are now giving good reasons to doubt this. Of course, what you say makes sense: of course it is very expensive to have to make very major alterations to existing structures. The likelihood is that, economically speaking, fully redeveloping GP may not end up being cheaper than building Kirkby.
Finally, on what was originally said regarding Kirkby. This is interesting in terms of our opinions of those who said these things, of course. But it is not particularly relevant to our discussion now as to what to do. It is simple logic that Kirkby could have been massively oversold - but it still could be a good, even our best option.
Consider the same logic: Fellaini may be overvalued at £15M, but that doesn’t mean that he’s worth nothing. He could still be a player we want to keep. Just because Kirkby isn’t free, doesn’t mean that we should automatically dismiss it as an option because it costs £80M. The relevant comparison is with what else we could get NOW for our £80M, not with what was said by a departed CEO two years ago. Again, let’s deal with the issues and not get bogged down in our hatreds for particular personalities.
The it comes (I hope) roughly to this. We agree that the club is poor right now and only has, say, £80M to spend. I think we probably agree that this is not going to be enough for a spanking new city centre stadium. So then you get to say you would prefer to spend the £80M on GP, and I say I think we would get better value spending it on a brand new stadium, even if it is not of the quality we would ideally like and it is in Kirkby. (Partly because of a part of my argument that you didn’t answer: that I think this way we are more likely to attract a new owner.)
All the conspiracy theories about Bill and his pals have gone. We don’t need to invent outlandishly foolish investors. And we don’t need to pretend that £80M buys a city centre stadium. Seems then that reasonable people could disagree about a pretty complicated issue.
You probably think the same of me, but on the ’Kenwright and his pals’ stuff I think you are simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again, basically: ’I can see that Kirkby will be an obvious financial disaster, but it will be so cleverly ’packaged’ that some very rich sport investor (much less smart than me) will pay way over the odds...’. Just think about it Tom!
If Kirkby is as much of an OBVIOUS disaster as you say it is, then it is a disaster. It is not then going to make anyone rich. You are not arguing Tom that Kirkby is subtly, secretly flawed, so that a reasonably smart businessman might make an understandable mistake. No, you are arguing that (I quote you) "the fundamentals aren’t even in sight". But yet there is going to be some very rich businessman SO blind that they will none the less pay way over the odds and make Bill and his pals really rich?
Actually what is really frustrating for me in countering this nonsense time and time again is that it does not even support your opposition to Kirkby. Why not go for the much simpler argument that the Everton Board have made a big mistake and Kirkby will be a disaster for the club? Of course then it will be a disaster for them too, and it will also have the very unpleasant consequence of deterring a new investor. This makes Kirkby EVEN WORSE. Why not argue this? My only conclusion can be that you hate Kenwright so much that you are more interested in him being evil than being wrong. I can’t think why else you wouldn’t just go for the much simpler and more powerful argument against Kirkby. You tell me Tom!
On the Loop and other sites in the city, I assume from what you say that you are now disagreeing with Trevor Skempton that a stadium on the Loop site would cost more than £200M to build? You think the Loop would cost the same as Kirkby, right?
Of course, as you well know, it DOES matter where a stadium is built, the nature and complexity of the site, the cost of the land, the amount of enabling investment etc. etc.. Stadiums don’t all cost exactly the same in total, even if the bits of steel that go into them do.
So Tom: do you think we could get a new stadium in the city for an outlay of as little as £80M or don’t you? I am still not clear.
On the redevelopment of GP, you yourself are now quoting numbers for relatively incomplete renovation in the £50M area. I think a lot of people on this site believe that utterly transforming GP can be achieved for much less than building Kirkby - you yourself are now giving good reasons to doubt this. Of course, what you say makes sense: of course it is very expensive to have to make very major alterations to existing structures. The likelihood is that, economically speaking, fully redeveloping GP may not end up being cheaper than building Kirkby.
Finally, on what was originally said regarding Kirkby. This is interesting in terms of our opinions of those who said these things, of course. But it is not particularly relevant to our discussion now as to what to do. It is simple logic that Kirkby could have been massively oversold - but it still could be a good, even our best option.
Consider the same logic: Fellaini may be overvalued at £15M, but that doesn’t mean that he’s worth nothing. He could still be a player we want to keep. Just because Kirkby isn’t free, doesn’t mean that we should automatically dismiss it as an option because it costs £80M. The relevant comparison is with what else we could get NOW for our £80M, not with what was said by a departed CEO two years ago. Again, let’s deal with the issues and not get bogged down in our hatreds for particular personalities.
The it comes (I hope) roughly to this. We agree that the club is poor right now and only has, say, £80M to spend. I think we probably agree that this is not going to be enough for a spanking new city centre stadium. So then you get to say you would prefer to spend the £80M on GP, and I say I think we would get better value spending it on a brand new stadium, even if it is not of the quality we would ideally like and it is in Kirkby. (Partly because of a part of my argument that you didn’t answer: that I think this way we are more likely to attract a new owner.)
All the conspiracy theories about Bill and his pals have gone. We don’t need to invent outlandishly foolish investors. And we don’t need to pretend that £80M buys a city centre stadium. Seems then that reasonable people could disagree about a pretty complicated issue.
Neil,
Whilst I may not agree with your standpoint, I do certainly admire you tenacity.
It feels as though the debate has moved on little in recent months except that the economic climate is considerably worse than it was, which wasn?t a massive surprise but I think few would have guessed quite the extent ? trying to predict exactly what will happen in the next 18 months is not quite as futile as speculating on Kenwright?s exact motivations for pressing on with this project, but unless the money (with interest) has been strictly ring-fenced and divvied up in "safe" financial institutions, he?ll certainly have few friends if DK does get the go ahead and there isn?t the cash to get started.
For me, I can see that having planning permission for a new stadium may attract interest from potential investors, but given it?s very apparent flaws would surely not actually be any kind of a pro to an investor in the long run. They would be receive planning permission for a cheap stadium without any history that has a backer that has already been held up so would not relish the thought of further protracting the situation by changing the plans at all, in an area that does not currently have the infrastructure for such a development or any real plans to implement such transport links, but is hoping for a turn around in it?s current economic situations at a time when much of the country is hoping for a bit of help. All this at a club that pointedly shouts about its history (with the danger of a split fan base), a team punching above their weight in many respects that are in need of a cash injection before the house of cards wobbles too much in a league with some very big financial hitters where there have already been some fairly high profile losses.
So basically any financial benefit of getting the new stadium, which Tesco is so kindly helping with, is wiped out because they still need to pay for some of the build and they?ll want to demonstrate some of that financial muscle, or what?s the point and anyway it?ll make the fans like them. However there is the sale of the other assets to hand such as the old antiquated stadium which everyone hated so much, perhaps they could develop them in one/two bed apartments for young professionals? I mean everyone?s buying off plan these days ? this guy is, he/she/they clearly would want no say whatsoever in Kirkby ? it?s only a football ground right?! There?s the risk that those customers who do want to attend may have difficulty getting to the shiny stadium unless they have a bicycle, and the old guy, who?s a die hard Evertonian, was last seen peddling like crazy for the horizon.
Right, time for bed!
Whilst I may not agree with your standpoint, I do certainly admire you tenacity.
It feels as though the debate has moved on little in recent months except that the economic climate is considerably worse than it was, which wasn?t a massive surprise but I think few would have guessed quite the extent ? trying to predict exactly what will happen in the next 18 months is not quite as futile as speculating on Kenwright?s exact motivations for pressing on with this project, but unless the money (with interest) has been strictly ring-fenced and divvied up in "safe" financial institutions, he?ll certainly have few friends if DK does get the go ahead and there isn?t the cash to get started.
For me, I can see that having planning permission for a new stadium may attract interest from potential investors, but given it?s very apparent flaws would surely not actually be any kind of a pro to an investor in the long run. They would be receive planning permission for a cheap stadium without any history that has a backer that has already been held up so would not relish the thought of further protracting the situation by changing the plans at all, in an area that does not currently have the infrastructure for such a development or any real plans to implement such transport links, but is hoping for a turn around in it?s current economic situations at a time when much of the country is hoping for a bit of help. All this at a club that pointedly shouts about its history (with the danger of a split fan base), a team punching above their weight in many respects that are in need of a cash injection before the house of cards wobbles too much in a league with some very big financial hitters where there have already been some fairly high profile losses.
So basically any financial benefit of getting the new stadium, which Tesco is so kindly helping with, is wiped out because they still need to pay for some of the build and they?ll want to demonstrate some of that financial muscle, or what?s the point and anyway it?ll make the fans like them. However there is the sale of the other assets to hand such as the old antiquated stadium which everyone hated so much, perhaps they could develop them in one/two bed apartments for young professionals? I mean everyone?s buying off plan these days ? this guy is, he/she/they clearly would want no say whatsoever in Kirkby ? it?s only a football ground right?! There?s the risk that those customers who do want to attend may have difficulty getting to the shiny stadium unless they have a bicycle, and the old guy, who?s a die hard Evertonian, was last seen peddling like crazy for the horizon.
Right, time for bed!
In the current and forseable economic climate its difficult to see how we can afford a contribution of £80m to any stadium, but I guess we?ve got SIr Terry holding ?his? club by the balls with the great big bank of Tesco so that's why we should be confident we?ll be able to see DK succeed.
Trevor Skempton was very clear, a stadium at the loop would cost £230M-ish and probably a lot more. I can't see how we can afford that without at least 3x the enabling that DK can provide for the club ? how can we get that sort of money in the current or ANY economic climate? LCC not allowing us to go ahead with Bellefield also doesnt help us in regards to a City Centre site as well as Kirkby.
Trevor Skempton was very clear, a stadium at the loop would cost £230M-ish and probably a lot more. I can't see how we can afford that without at least 3x the enabling that DK can provide for the club ? how can we get that sort of money in the current or ANY economic climate? LCC not allowing us to go ahead with Bellefield also doesnt help us in regards to a City Centre site as well as Kirkby.
Paul,
How much enabling or cross subsidy is DK’s retail element actually generating? When you have solved that particular conundrum, ask yourself how the Kings Dock stadium managed to produce 90% of the finance for a significantly more expensive stadium on a smaller plot than DK. Out of town retail parks are not great enablers they are basic non-iconic architecture, predominently single storey warehouse type with no scope for multi-storey high-value, high yield developments. Downtown developments are the complete opposite, hence the massive difference in return illustrated in comparing KD and DK.
How much enabling or cross subsidy is DK’s retail element actually generating? When you have solved that particular conundrum, ask yourself how the Kings Dock stadium managed to produce 90% of the finance for a significantly more expensive stadium on a smaller plot than DK. Out of town retail parks are not great enablers they are basic non-iconic architecture, predominently single storey warehouse type with no scope for multi-storey high-value, high yield developments. Downtown developments are the complete opposite, hence the massive difference in return illustrated in comparing KD and DK.
Neil,
I give you examples, you talk analogies regarding side issues and whether or not you can afford a BMW???!
I gave you examples of 2 high profile football club take-overs that contradict your desperate stance that businessmen don’t get it wrong..... all while the business world is full of similarly catastrophic business decision-makers.
Get this straight...... I DO NOT HATE BK. Your attempt to build an argument around this is pitiful. However, The old pals act that you dispute or try to relegate to the conspiracy theory drawer is fact. BK has his backers and infact owns his shareholding because of these. These, in the words of BK himself are "very good friends of EFC". They are retail men! Unfortunately, now he is beholden to them because they put him where he is, and they have underwrote everything he’s done...... the "favour in return" is DK. They cannot have their retail anywhere else except Kirkby..... Therefore we have to go to Kirkby despite ALL the evidence against out of town stadia.
There is plenty of documentation/articles/books that have been cited on these websites etc demonstrating the glaring differences in performance and finance of inner city and downtown stadia in all respects, and the reasoning behind the demise of the out of town model in most countries. Can you post anything to the contrary that supports DK or will we get another ropey analogy, because quite frankly these are the real issues?
I give you examples, you talk analogies regarding side issues and whether or not you can afford a BMW???!
I gave you examples of 2 high profile football club take-overs that contradict your desperate stance that businessmen don’t get it wrong..... all while the business world is full of similarly catastrophic business decision-makers.
Get this straight...... I DO NOT HATE BK. Your attempt to build an argument around this is pitiful. However, The old pals act that you dispute or try to relegate to the conspiracy theory drawer is fact. BK has his backers and infact owns his shareholding because of these. These, in the words of BK himself are "very good friends of EFC". They are retail men! Unfortunately, now he is beholden to them because they put him where he is, and they have underwrote everything he’s done...... the "favour in return" is DK. They cannot have their retail anywhere else except Kirkby..... Therefore we have to go to Kirkby despite ALL the evidence against out of town stadia.
There is plenty of documentation/articles/books that have been cited on these websites etc demonstrating the glaring differences in performance and finance of inner city and downtown stadia in all respects, and the reasoning behind the demise of the out of town model in most countries. Can you post anything to the contrary that supports DK or will we get another ropey analogy, because quite frankly these are the real issues?
Oh I wanted to stay out of this because every man and his dog probably knows my take on this, but Neil, you could twist the tale off the devil, you can turn words into contradictions and I am never sure whether you really don’t see others points of view or you like to wind people up. I still can’t make my mind up on that one.
As for your take on Kirkby, its value and net worth to BK in the short term, we have banged heads on this before and all I can say to you is Man City. They don’t own their stadium either.. so lets face it..there are some buyers out there who would love the prestige of owning a EPL club.
For me Neil, one has to question why, as Tom correctly pointed out, that ALL the selling points that justified this deal have been ditched, modified or exposed for what they are. So why, oh why if we are so broke and there is so little benefit operationally to the cash flow for the club and next to no benefit to the supporters, why take the risk at all??
I have argued since its conception that all the half truths and lies, the exclusitivity agreements that prevented conveniently any alternative being found could reasonably justify any person asking what the motivation for the move was.
Since then of course, with all the costs in tatters, with all the truths exposed, we are in an even worse position than what we were promised almost to the point of no additional benefit at all from an operational perspective.
And before you counter with "Then why would anyone pay more for it than Goodision" Because the asset value is worth more and by default the club is worth more and therefore the the shareholders value is more .. not my words but check Mr Elstones acceptance of the point to the Inquiry..
Check it out Neil, even the CEO acknowledges it.
So, the question is whether anyone will be enticed..
But you know something Neil.. DK will have no positive affect on the playing staff, the finance for team building, not on corporate boxes, not on the enticing of star players.. nope.. because the ridiculous facade of the finances of the EPL means EVERY club lives beyond its means (except perhaps Man U or Arse) an so players are bought and sold with credit on expectation of earnings.. God help them when Sky fall over..
I for one can’t see the justification to relocate to Kirkby when there isn;t any and frankly there never was.
When all we have been told amounts to lies and half truths why should you continue to trust those who got you into trouble in the first place.
Its like Chapter 11 in the US, a company runs a business badly and then files for protection from creditors and is the same management is allowed to come up with a plan to get themselves out of the crap they got into in the first place..
Off with their heads .....Like I have said before. If BK sold on for a modest return you can bet your life their would be buyers out there, someone with a different vision perhaps.. but if we go to Kirkby we will never know and the directors and main shareholders will sell up as their stated intention to do so. Leaving the fans with the legacy of an out of town club, the barbs of one city one club will never go away..
I’d say we’d been sold down the river but that takes you to Runcorn not Kirkby..
As for your take on Kirkby, its value and net worth to BK in the short term, we have banged heads on this before and all I can say to you is Man City. They don’t own their stadium either.. so lets face it..there are some buyers out there who would love the prestige of owning a EPL club.
For me Neil, one has to question why, as Tom correctly pointed out, that ALL the selling points that justified this deal have been ditched, modified or exposed for what they are. So why, oh why if we are so broke and there is so little benefit operationally to the cash flow for the club and next to no benefit to the supporters, why take the risk at all??
I have argued since its conception that all the half truths and lies, the exclusitivity agreements that prevented conveniently any alternative being found could reasonably justify any person asking what the motivation for the move was.
Since then of course, with all the costs in tatters, with all the truths exposed, we are in an even worse position than what we were promised almost to the point of no additional benefit at all from an operational perspective.
And before you counter with "Then why would anyone pay more for it than Goodision" Because the asset value is worth more and by default the club is worth more and therefore the the shareholders value is more .. not my words but check Mr Elstones acceptance of the point to the Inquiry..
Check it out Neil, even the CEO acknowledges it.
So, the question is whether anyone will be enticed..
But you know something Neil.. DK will have no positive affect on the playing staff, the finance for team building, not on corporate boxes, not on the enticing of star players.. nope.. because the ridiculous facade of the finances of the EPL means EVERY club lives beyond its means (except perhaps Man U or Arse) an so players are bought and sold with credit on expectation of earnings.. God help them when Sky fall over..
I for one can’t see the justification to relocate to Kirkby when there isn;t any and frankly there never was.
When all we have been told amounts to lies and half truths why should you continue to trust those who got you into trouble in the first place.
Its like Chapter 11 in the US, a company runs a business badly and then files for protection from creditors and is the same management is allowed to come up with a plan to get themselves out of the crap they got into in the first place..
Off with their heads .....Like I have said before. If BK sold on for a modest return you can bet your life their would be buyers out there, someone with a different vision perhaps.. but if we go to Kirkby we will never know and the directors and main shareholders will sell up as their stated intention to do so. Leaving the fans with the legacy of an out of town club, the barbs of one city one club will never go away..
I’d say we’d been sold down the river but that takes you to Runcorn not Kirkby..
Christine,
Very well summarised!
One point though before Neil pipes in and takes us on a nautical digression..... Runcorn’s up river not down-river!! ;)
Very well summarised!
One point though before Neil pipes in and takes us on a nautical digression..... Runcorn’s up river not down-river!! ;)
My apologies Tom, I should continue the nautical analogy by stating that in going to Kirkby we would be up shit creek without a paddle...
It feels to me that they all believe the hype and not the substance. Kirkby was hyped as a solution which it is, but not to our problem, it was a solution to Tesco?s, an enabler for getting through the minefield of planning legislation that would have been dead set against any such development without EFC as a flagship for the site.
EFC was a diversion. It costs Tesco nothing yet they gain from the prestige of a Premier League club in the Tesco basket.
Great marketing for them but a hardly a deal for the club.
What gets me know is why the club persist? Surely they still don?t believe their own hype? Their own figures? Which even at the most optimistic view would say they still don?t justify a move?
It's ok building a retail park, but hang on, look at the High street, the closed signs, the job losses, so who is going to take up the space, who in Kirkby and the surrounding area is going to shop their anyway?
There is only one pie in the North West, only the same amount of people. So... if Kirkby suddenly found 100k more people to shop in its development, then a 100k people would not be shopping somewhere else. Even more depression for Skem but who cares?
Oh yes that's right... the Inspector ? after all, if Kirkby does go ahead, it will kill any other proposed retail development within a 30-mile radius!!
What bets the inspector goes for a much scaled down (no stadium) development that allows Skem and others to go ahead? Share the jobs time I think...
It feels to me that they all believe the hype and not the substance. Kirkby was hyped as a solution which it is, but not to our problem, it was a solution to Tesco?s, an enabler for getting through the minefield of planning legislation that would have been dead set against any such development without EFC as a flagship for the site.
EFC was a diversion. It costs Tesco nothing yet they gain from the prestige of a Premier League club in the Tesco basket.
Great marketing for them but a hardly a deal for the club.
What gets me know is why the club persist? Surely they still don?t believe their own hype? Their own figures? Which even at the most optimistic view would say they still don?t justify a move?
It's ok building a retail park, but hang on, look at the High street, the closed signs, the job losses, so who is going to take up the space, who in Kirkby and the surrounding area is going to shop their anyway?
There is only one pie in the North West, only the same amount of people. So... if Kirkby suddenly found 100k more people to shop in its development, then a 100k people would not be shopping somewhere else. Even more depression for Skem but who cares?
Oh yes that's right... the Inspector ? after all, if Kirkby does go ahead, it will kill any other proposed retail development within a 30-mile radius!!
What bets the inspector goes for a much scaled down (no stadium) development that allows Skem and others to go ahead? Share the jobs time I think...
Christine, you ask "What gets me now is why the club persist? Surely they still don?t believe their own hype? their own figures?"
Well here’s your answer, maybe they don’t, as this is a quote from Robert Elstone two days ago "I don?t think there has been any material drop off in attendances. Some clubs ebb and flow a little bit. Small town clubs will always struggle if they have big city clubs close by."
Yes, read it and weep, "Small town clubs will always struggle if they have big city clubs close by."
Well here’s your answer, maybe they don’t, as this is a quote from Robert Elstone two days ago "I don?t think there has been any material drop off in attendances. Some clubs ebb and flow a little bit. Small town clubs will always struggle if they have big city clubs close by."
Yes, read it and weep, "Small town clubs will always struggle if they have big city clubs close by."
Who needs Benitez, when we’ve got Elstone.....? haha
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 01/02/2009 at 16:57:00
Report abuse