The Mail Bag
The Grand Old Lady
Comments (61)
I am not an economics expert by a long shot, but having read most of the posts (with great interest) about the move to you know where, it makes me wonder why, as soon as its mentioned to redevelop Goodison, the general consensus of opinion is a very resounding NO! Surely in this age of credit crunch etc,etc,etc, builders are crying out for work. They (the construction industry) probably would do the job cut price, just to secure a contract.
All the letters explaining the whys and wherefores do not mean a thing to me, in the past we have been given a load of numbers that mean nothing to the followers of this GREAT Club.
I really do not see why the ground cannot be redeveloped. Please guys, do not come back at me with fantasy numbers, Let's have something concrete (pardon the pun) to actually SAY why we cannot redress the OLD LADY.
Teddy Draper, Posted 15/03/2009 at 10:34:58
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
Michael, totally agree with you on all points.
BK and his pals have been determined to go to desolation Kirkby at any cost.
Besides the gain in value I think BK wants to stick 2 fingers up at LCC who have been a thorn in his side since he blew the KD project.
He seems to carry grudges looking at the way he turned on Paul Gregg who with due cause questioned his ability to run the finances at Everton.
BK and his pals have been determined to go to desolation Kirkby at any cost.
Besides the gain in value I think BK wants to stick 2 fingers up at LCC who have been a thorn in his side since he blew the KD project.
He seems to carry grudges looking at the way he turned on Paul Gregg who with due cause questioned his ability to run the finances at Everton.
"Surely in this age of credit crunch etc, etc, etc, builders are crying out for work."
The reason they?re all out of work is because there?s a credit crunch ? ie, there?s no money. Although this does raise questions about the funding of DK. (I'm not clear on where this is at').
"They [the construction industry] probably would do the job cut price, just to secure a contract."
Ever met a builder? The reason people don't like cutting their prices as a one-off is that everyone else will expect to be able to hire them for the same prices later. And their suppliers have to cut their prices too. It also causes problems when it comes to paying the bills.
I?m not an expert on stadia design but it?s been claimed that a modern stadium superstructure wouldn?t fit into the Goodison site as it?s either not big enough or is the wrong shape or something like that. I would also GUESS that building in in such a closed environment would increase the costs and construction time.
The reason they?re all out of work is because there?s a credit crunch ? ie, there?s no money. Although this does raise questions about the funding of DK. (I'm not clear on where this is at').
"They [the construction industry] probably would do the job cut price, just to secure a contract."
Ever met a builder? The reason people don't like cutting their prices as a one-off is that everyone else will expect to be able to hire them for the same prices later. And their suppliers have to cut their prices too. It also causes problems when it comes to paying the bills.
I?m not an expert on stadia design but it?s been claimed that a modern stadium superstructure wouldn?t fit into the Goodison site as it?s either not big enough or is the wrong shape or something like that. I would also GUESS that building in in such a closed environment would increase the costs and construction time.
And still noboby can come up with a viable alternative to Kirkby!!!
Get over it... it's time to move and if Kirkby is the ONLY option (which it clearly is) then I for one am all for it so the club can move forward. Staying put is a complete non-starter!!
Get over it... it's time to move and if Kirkby is the ONLY option (which it clearly is) then I for one am all for it so the club can move forward. Staying put is a complete non-starter!!
I agree with Sean McCarthy,
DK is far from a dream move and not what we would have chosen with unlimited options. But we don?t have unlimited options... in fact we have two... move to Kirkby or stay at Goodison as it is. It is as simple as that.
DK is far from a dream move and not what we would have chosen with unlimited options. But we don?t have unlimited options... in fact we have two... move to Kirkby or stay at Goodison as it is. It is as simple as that.
...and here we go again.
The club’s position is open & transparent. The board do not have the private funds to pay for a stadium. The club is not generating sufficient/any profit to repay such an investment (if it were forthcoming, which it wouldn’t be).
I am not a fan of Kirkby, nor of Tesco, nor do I want us to move out of Liverpool, nor do I want the club’s fans tearing themselves apart over whatever it is we end up doing. But I do understand business and economics and, for anyone else that does, the clubs current position is a 100% no-brainer.
To go back to the old drivel suggesting Kenwright can see ££££’s in front of his eyes is sad, ignorant bollocks. But hey, that’s never stopped people before.
As for the specific question about Goodison, well, frankly, it’s astonishing. I mean, apart from the large funds to do it, the huge loss of revenue (& atmosphere) brought about by demolishing whole sides of the ground over a long time, the added complications of the Goodison footprint which might require a rotation (if you don’t understand, take a look at the shape of the Main Stand), well, all that aside, there’s no reason at all why it can’t be done, is there?
Think of the "Romans" sketch in Life of Brian & don’t ask any more stupid questions.
The club’s position is open & transparent. The board do not have the private funds to pay for a stadium. The club is not generating sufficient/any profit to repay such an investment (if it were forthcoming, which it wouldn’t be).
I am not a fan of Kirkby, nor of Tesco, nor do I want us to move out of Liverpool, nor do I want the club’s fans tearing themselves apart over whatever it is we end up doing. But I do understand business and economics and, for anyone else that does, the clubs current position is a 100% no-brainer.
To go back to the old drivel suggesting Kenwright can see ££££’s in front of his eyes is sad, ignorant bollocks. But hey, that’s never stopped people before.
As for the specific question about Goodison, well, frankly, it’s astonishing. I mean, apart from the large funds to do it, the huge loss of revenue (& atmosphere) brought about by demolishing whole sides of the ground over a long time, the added complications of the Goodison footprint which might require a rotation (if you don’t understand, take a look at the shape of the Main Stand), well, all that aside, there’s no reason at all why it can’t be done, is there?
Think of the "Romans" sketch in Life of Brian & don’t ask any more stupid questions.
To the two blind mice (Sean and Dave), there are always options.
As Michael said, it?s up to the owners of the club to have the will to investigate them.
There are two indisputable facts:
1. BK (nor his management team has never sought to build on Stanley Park). It?s in the public records: no enquiry whatsoever from EFC.
2. BK has never investigated any proposal apart from Kirkby. The list of rejected sites was one that LFC had rejected earlier and was promoted by a certain Keith Wyness as EFC?s list of rejects.
Also because of the so-called exclusivity agreement, no other sites have been considered including The Loop, Stanley Park, Walton Park and the Dock area.
Are you guys trying to claim that a contaminated plot of land in Kirkby is the only possibility in the whole of Liverpool???
Get a life lads ? if BK would sit down with LCC, I?m sure there would be quite a few BETTER possibilities.
My other question to you is HOW would your matchday experience be better with a much further distance from the pitch, poor atmosphere, ridiculous travelling experience ? and all for what so you can have a piss in a decent toilet?
You make me laugh. Do your homework then come on here and promote Kirkby if you can.
As Michael said, it?s up to the owners of the club to have the will to investigate them.
There are two indisputable facts:
1. BK (nor his management team has never sought to build on Stanley Park). It?s in the public records: no enquiry whatsoever from EFC.
2. BK has never investigated any proposal apart from Kirkby. The list of rejected sites was one that LFC had rejected earlier and was promoted by a certain Keith Wyness as EFC?s list of rejects.
Also because of the so-called exclusivity agreement, no other sites have been considered including The Loop, Stanley Park, Walton Park and the Dock area.
Are you guys trying to claim that a contaminated plot of land in Kirkby is the only possibility in the whole of Liverpool???
Get a life lads ? if BK would sit down with LCC, I?m sure there would be quite a few BETTER possibilities.
My other question to you is HOW would your matchday experience be better with a much further distance from the pitch, poor atmosphere, ridiculous travelling experience ? and all for what so you can have a piss in a decent toilet?
You make me laugh. Do your homework then come on here and promote Kirkby if you can.
How can it be a good business to go to a stadium that has only a fraction of the public transport capacity of the current one? A stadium we cannot get too easily is a white elephant! How can it be good business to relocate to outside the main catchment area from an historic home that is much more central...... bit like Debenhams in Liverpool One moving to Kensington!
Out-of-town stadia were generally a disaster in the US, yet somehow they?re good business sense here?! People are forgetting that at £78m (and rising) we are essentially paying for 3 of the 4 stands at Kirkby (total construction cost £100m)....... The enabling cross funding has been a complete red herring! We don?t necessarily need 3 new stands at GP..... certainly not in the short to medium term.
Here we go again.....
Have a look at where Goodison is. Redeveloping it would require removal of the main arterial road which runs alongside and a good number of the houses adjacent to the ground. If this was a serious option it would have been done.
Kirkby is still the most likely option given that no-one seems to be able to face a shared stadium... though that would make most sense in many ways. (If it works in Milan....)
Have a look at where Goodison is. Redeveloping it would require removal of the main arterial road which runs alongside and a good number of the houses adjacent to the ground. If this was a serious option it would have been done.
Kirkby is still the most likely option given that no-one seems to be able to face a shared stadium... though that would make most sense in many ways. (If it works in Milan....)
There is literally enough room at the Park End to build the biggest end stand in Britain..... so why would Walton Lane need removal?
Sufficient footprint can be achieved by bridging Bullens Rd alone where there are only 2 streets abutting meaning minimum house clearance. £78m would easily cover it!
The reason it hasn?t been done, is BK?s backers, who he is beholden to as they have underwrote his chairmanship and wouldn't get their retail project ? which delivers us roughly the cost of half of one stand!
Sufficient footprint can be achieved by bridging Bullens Rd alone where there are only 2 streets abutting meaning minimum house clearance. £78m would easily cover it!
The reason it hasn?t been done, is BK?s backers, who he is beholden to as they have underwrote his chairmanship and wouldn't get their retail project ? which delivers us roughly the cost of half of one stand!
Tom Hughes:
I have no doubt of your ability, I've read all your stuff and you obviously know what youre talking about. But who pays for all this? Kirkby can be a secured asset, Goodison cannot be nearly as higher LVT surely?
Where does the £78m come from because increasing the capacity at GP does not increase the club's assets as it does pound for pound at DK.
I have no doubt of your ability, I've read all your stuff and you obviously know what youre talking about. But who pays for all this? Kirkby can be a secured asset, Goodison cannot be nearly as higher LVT surely?
Where does the £78m come from because increasing the capacity at GP does not increase the club's assets as it does pound for pound at DK.
The original post to all this (mine) was just a thought that's been going around my head since day one that all this moving lark started. A very understanderble point of view (imo) came from Tom Hughes, but there were some very, very negatives, especially from Alan K. who replied to my post "Dont ask any more stupid questions". Alan mate, I was just asking, that's all...
In the words of Forest Gump, "Stupid is as Stupid does".
At the risk of being labelled stupid, a luddite, dreamer, economics illiterate, innumerate or whatever, may I ask Mr. Kirwan and his many fellow travellers a simple question?
Am I right in thinking that the new stadium will have made no sense whatever if crowds dip to around 30 / 32,000? Or is there still some dream that, as soon as a large enough biscuit tin is provided, hordes of hitherto unsuspected fans of the club will be beating down the doors every home game?
The "realists", "simple as" people seem to base their hard-headed arguments on something as insubstantial as any other argument in this debate. But how could a stupid person presume to argue against them?
Am I right in thinking that the new stadium will have made no sense whatever if crowds dip to around 30 / 32,000? Or is there still some dream that, as soon as a large enough biscuit tin is provided, hordes of hitherto unsuspected fans of the club will be beating down the doors every home game?
The "realists", "simple as" people seem to base their hard-headed arguments on something as insubstantial as any other argument in this debate. But how could a stupid person presume to argue against them?
Still here Michael! A happy blue on recent performances. Glad Fellaini has got his hair cut.
On Kenwright and £££s and the valuation, my embarrassingly obvious point has only ever been: simply building a new stadium (Kirkby) does not on its own guarantee that someone will come along and buy the club off Bill for lots more money than they would otherwise. They will pay more money for the club only if they think Kirkby makes Everton a better business proposition overall. Unless of course they are just stupid.
I remain amazed that this is even a matter for discussion. Plus ca change...
On Kenwright and £££s and the valuation, my embarrassingly obvious point has only ever been: simply building a new stadium (Kirkby) does not on its own guarantee that someone will come along and buy the club off Bill for lots more money than they would otherwise. They will pay more money for the club only if they think Kirkby makes Everton a better business proposition overall. Unless of course they are just stupid.
I remain amazed that this is even a matter for discussion. Plus ca change...
Jay Harris,
In response;-
1. The Loop site is too small and it would be at least very costly and perhaps impossible to meet safety standards as a result.
And who would pay for it?
2. Who said building on another Park (Walton Hall) was an option? Even if it was who would pay for it?
3. Where about on the docklands do you think Everton could build a Stadium? The current owners (Peel) have no provision for a stadium in their redevelopment plans and the only other land I can think of that could theoretically house a stadium is across the Sefton border....but we can’t go there can we because it’s not in Liverpool ?
And even if we could who is going to pay for it?
I do have a life thank you very much...and I live it in the real world, which can be painful at times but at least it prevents me from coming up with uncosted, unclear and imaginary pipe dreams.
In response;-
1. The Loop site is too small and it would be at least very costly and perhaps impossible to meet safety standards as a result.
And who would pay for it?
2. Who said building on another Park (Walton Hall) was an option? Even if it was who would pay for it?
3. Where about on the docklands do you think Everton could build a Stadium? The current owners (Peel) have no provision for a stadium in their redevelopment plans and the only other land I can think of that could theoretically house a stadium is across the Sefton border....but we can’t go there can we because it’s not in Liverpool ?
And even if we could who is going to pay for it?
I do have a life thank you very much...and I live it in the real world, which can be painful at times but at least it prevents me from coming up with uncosted, unclear and imaginary pipe dreams.
Dave
you could say the same about Kirkby:
It's on contaminated land that (according to Everton?s own specialist), will cost £2 to 3 million (about the same as making the loop suitable) to decontaminate before a spade can be dug.
Transport proposals are at best totally inadequate.
The distance from the pitch is excessive for quite a few seats.
It will be the MOST "out of town" location in the Premier League.
It cannot hold concerts or other income generating events.
The facilities have to be given over to KMBC for a third of the year.
Capacity is limited to 50,000 and may be reduced further to 40,000 if they cant improve the transport arrangements.
About the loop:
who says it will be too costly and unable to meet safety standards?
A study was done by HK, a much more experienced stadium developers than Barr who said a very classy 55,000 seater stadium was DEFINITELY possible on the loop.
As regards Walton Hall Park, Sainsbury was actually interested in doing a stadium development with EFC and I don't see how LCC could object having given the RS permission to build in Stanley Park.
There is always the option of a ground share albeit some supporters would not be happy and commonsense would have to prevail at all levels but its still an option.
No option is ideal but IMO Kirkby will be a total white elephant built because of Billy?s mates pushing for the enhanced value that will come out of the retail element and sod EFC.
you could say the same about Kirkby:
It's on contaminated land that (according to Everton?s own specialist), will cost £2 to 3 million (about the same as making the loop suitable) to decontaminate before a spade can be dug.
Transport proposals are at best totally inadequate.
The distance from the pitch is excessive for quite a few seats.
It will be the MOST "out of town" location in the Premier League.
It cannot hold concerts or other income generating events.
The facilities have to be given over to KMBC for a third of the year.
Capacity is limited to 50,000 and may be reduced further to 40,000 if they cant improve the transport arrangements.
About the loop:
who says it will be too costly and unable to meet safety standards?
A study was done by HK, a much more experienced stadium developers than Barr who said a very classy 55,000 seater stadium was DEFINITELY possible on the loop.
As regards Walton Hall Park, Sainsbury was actually interested in doing a stadium development with EFC and I don't see how LCC could object having given the RS permission to build in Stanley Park.
There is always the option of a ground share albeit some supporters would not be happy and commonsense would have to prevail at all levels but its still an option.
No option is ideal but IMO Kirkby will be a total white elephant built because of Billy?s mates pushing for the enhanced value that will come out of the retail element and sod EFC.
Time and time again, people bring up the option of redeveloping Goodison but no one says WHERE the money is going to be generate to fund it.
IF we did redevelop, it would hardly be a wonder stadium and would have to sit next to the £250M new Anfield funded by the Yanks.
IF we did redevelop, it would hardly be a wonder stadium and would have to sit next to the £250M new Anfield funded by the Yanks.
Gavin,
Surely if a proposal can be drawn up to borrow the supposed minimum of £78M needed for Kirkby before it’s been built can be done, then the same sum could be borrowed to redevelop a proven, historical asset. Even more prudent would be to borrow smaller amounts for each phase for a slightly longer term redevelopment plan.
Surely if a proposal can be drawn up to borrow the supposed minimum of £78M needed for Kirkby before it’s been built can be done, then the same sum could be borrowed to redevelop a proven, historical asset. Even more prudent would be to borrow smaller amounts for each phase for a slightly longer term redevelopment plan.
I do wonder why Gavin?s point ? that even a redeveloped Goodison will be literally in the shadow of the New Anfield ?doesn?t bother people more? It certainly bothers me. It will be like having an upgraded Upton Park sitting right next to The Emirates. It will certainly give the RS endless opportunities to laugh at us (I?m not saying that Kirkby won?t ? just that a redeveloped GP will too).
Of course what this really means is that it is complete insanity that we are not going for a shared stadium. Now the whole country and footballing world gets to laugh at (both of) us.
Of course what this really means is that it is complete insanity that we are not going for a shared stadium. Now the whole country and footballing world gets to laugh at (both of) us.
Anfield was a 4th division standard stadium stood in the shadows of GP for 70 years until the RS success in the 70s and that didn't stop them progressing did it?
Also the benefits are the additional car park and transport provisions created by their development. We havent felt overshadowed by their on-the-pitch success over the years so why should a shiny new stadium present any inferiority complex?
WE ARE EVERTON
Chad, totally agree with you and would just like to add there is more chance of attracting commercial support at GP (I.e. hotels, restaurants etc.) than there is at Kirkby.
People need to understand Kirkby is not free and there are no magic lenders out there that would not use normal borrowing criteria to give a loan. One of which is location and commerciality, which IMO Kirkby would score lower on than GP.
Also the benefits are the additional car park and transport provisions created by their development. We havent felt overshadowed by their on-the-pitch success over the years so why should a shiny new stadium present any inferiority complex?
WE ARE EVERTON
Chad, totally agree with you and would just like to add there is more chance of attracting commercial support at GP (I.e. hotels, restaurants etc.) than there is at Kirkby.
People need to understand Kirkby is not free and there are no magic lenders out there that would not use normal borrowing criteria to give a loan. One of which is location and commerciality, which IMO Kirkby would score lower on than GP.
Jay Harris: "We haven’t felt overshadowed by their on the pitch success over the years, so why should a shiny new stadium present any inferiority complex? WE ARE EVERTON"
So, why not?: "We haven’t felt overshadowed by their on the pitch success over the years, so why should moving four miles present any inferiority complex? WE ARE EVERTON"
So, why not?: "We haven’t felt overshadowed by their on the pitch success over the years, so why should moving four miles present any inferiority complex? WE ARE EVERTON"
On a very recent Ground tour of Goodison Park which was great VFM. I was full of emotion & the Guide constantly explained why we had to move grounds understandbly for economics etc.
I asked the question of the set plans to turn the ground around to get the room to increase the capacity for what we need & add the necessary as it was applied for years ago & refused by the LCC on the basis of the School which is now going to close anyway!
So why won’t the Club look for investment & the get City council help us to achive this?
If it was a possibility & the school is going anyway why move to Kirkby the cost for us supppling the interior for that stadi is approching approx 80 million!
I do hope Kirkby fails as this is a good option as a plan B that the club has forgot convieniantly! She agreed the plans had been drawn up & t & seen them years ago! The school was not a problem anymore so the is nothing but finance & the Kirby project stopping us!
A great Ground tour & a memorable day, She was the Physios wife standing in for the great Dave Hickson who is recovering from his illness & she did the club proud! A day to remember at the peoples club!
Our History is there so we should redevelop it only if BK would take his blinkered glasses off!
I asked the question of the set plans to turn the ground around to get the room to increase the capacity for what we need & add the necessary as it was applied for years ago & refused by the LCC on the basis of the School which is now going to close anyway!
So why won’t the Club look for investment & the get City council help us to achive this?
If it was a possibility & the school is going anyway why move to Kirkby the cost for us supppling the interior for that stadi is approching approx 80 million!
I do hope Kirkby fails as this is a good option as a plan B that the club has forgot convieniantly! She agreed the plans had been drawn up & t & seen them years ago! The school was not a problem anymore so the is nothing but finance & the Kirby project stopping us!
A great Ground tour & a memorable day, She was the Physios wife standing in for the great Dave Hickson who is recovering from his illness & she did the club proud! A day to remember at the peoples club!
Our History is there so we should redevelop it only if BK would take his blinkered glasses off!
Jay,
How can the Loop be made suitable? It needs to be bigger! We would need Dr Who to fix that one.Take a look at the thumbnail drawings again, the ones that were posted on this site last year. It CANNOT be done. And the question remains, who would pay for it even if it could be done? Tesco don?t want to go there and the company there now have an annual turnover of £3m! They aren?t going to be able to make the same kind of contribution as Tesco.
Most brownfield sites are contaminated. Most building projects on brownfield sites have to be decontaminated these days. There is nothing unusual in that.
What?s wrong with KMBC using the facilities when we are not?
The HK study? Is this the 18-page document that nobody has ever actually seen? If the Loop was a viable option then LCC would be doing what they said they would do and try and help us find an enabling partner. But they ain't are they? All LCC have come up with (even after all their promises) is encouragement to reconsider a groundshare.
On the subject of LCC, they objected to Everton selling Bellefield for housing use in the middle of a residential area FFS! They are not going to be disposing of another park for a football stadium. The current Council Leader is in fact against the permission given by the previous administration to hand half of Stanley Park to the new Anfield. Walton Hall Park, whether or not Sainsburys are interested, is not going to happen.
I do agree with you on one point, the transport issue needs to be addressed. They have promised to look at this again as far as I am aware. Let?s see what the eventual proposals are shall we?
How can the Loop be made suitable? It needs to be bigger! We would need Dr Who to fix that one.Take a look at the thumbnail drawings again, the ones that were posted on this site last year. It CANNOT be done. And the question remains, who would pay for it even if it could be done? Tesco don?t want to go there and the company there now have an annual turnover of £3m! They aren?t going to be able to make the same kind of contribution as Tesco.
Most brownfield sites are contaminated. Most building projects on brownfield sites have to be decontaminated these days. There is nothing unusual in that.
What?s wrong with KMBC using the facilities when we are not?
The HK study? Is this the 18-page document that nobody has ever actually seen? If the Loop was a viable option then LCC would be doing what they said they would do and try and help us find an enabling partner. But they ain't are they? All LCC have come up with (even after all their promises) is encouragement to reconsider a groundshare.
On the subject of LCC, they objected to Everton selling Bellefield for housing use in the middle of a residential area FFS! They are not going to be disposing of another park for a football stadium. The current Council Leader is in fact against the permission given by the previous administration to hand half of Stanley Park to the new Anfield. Walton Hall Park, whether or not Sainsburys are interested, is not going to happen.
I do agree with you on one point, the transport issue needs to be addressed. They have promised to look at this again as far as I am aware. Let?s see what the eventual proposals are shall we?
Joey Dela,
I know exactly where you are coming from Joey and in an ideal world.....! But you are forgetting the most important points.
We can’t afford to redevelop Goodison.
Nobody is going to help us pay for it.
Most certainly LCC are not.
That is why I say now as I said a few posts above, we have two options. We either move to Kirkby or we stay at Goodison as she is.
I’ve been going to Goodison for 55 years. It would be a sad day for me to leave and go to Stanley Park, never mind Kirkby! But the Grand old Lady is just that now. Old and no longer fit for purpose. As much a shame as that is.
The one gripe I have is that Goodison should have been subject to redevelopment over the last 20 or even 30 years. We might now have been in the postion that Aston Villa find themselves in. An old stadium but one with all the modern facilities and which meets the expectations of supporters.
I will never forgive EFC for letting the place deteriorate as it has done with the exception of the building of the Park End Stand, which although an improvement on the old park end, is still a bit basic isn’t it?
I know exactly where you are coming from Joey and in an ideal world.....! But you are forgetting the most important points.
We can’t afford to redevelop Goodison.
Nobody is going to help us pay for it.
Most certainly LCC are not.
That is why I say now as I said a few posts above, we have two options. We either move to Kirkby or we stay at Goodison as she is.
I’ve been going to Goodison for 55 years. It would be a sad day for me to leave and go to Stanley Park, never mind Kirkby! But the Grand old Lady is just that now. Old and no longer fit for purpose. As much a shame as that is.
The one gripe I have is that Goodison should have been subject to redevelopment over the last 20 or even 30 years. We might now have been in the postion that Aston Villa find themselves in. An old stadium but one with all the modern facilities and which meets the expectations of supporters.
I will never forgive EFC for letting the place deteriorate as it has done with the exception of the building of the Park End Stand, which although an improvement on the old park end, is still a bit basic isn’t it?
I can’t believe some people are still pedalling nonsense that even the club have long since dropped.......
The Loop can physically accommodate the Millenium stadium (cap. 74,000). It can easily take the Kirkby stadium too. Cut and cover is the cheapest form of tunnel construction..... in the Loop’s case, the most expensive part of this, the cut and spoil removal is already done. Bridging the road will cost only a few percent of the total development cost.
People saying no-one is going to pay for redevelopment of Goodison need to realise..... NO-ONE is paying for Kirkby except Everton, The North west Development agency and a tiny input from cross funding that is shrinking all the time. The stadium cost is just £100m, NWDA giving £10m+, Everton £78m+ . Any enabling behind the Park end will realise its full value to the club and won’t be much less than that provided by the whole of destination Kirkby which quite frankly has been a complete red herring!
So the synopsis is we will be going to Kirkby, with a transport strategy that is shown to be still unviable, to an out of town site which opposes all modern stadium planning philosophy...... all for the the equivalent of just £12m cross funding, or half of one stand!
The Loop can physically accommodate the Millenium stadium (cap. 74,000). It can easily take the Kirkby stadium too. Cut and cover is the cheapest form of tunnel construction..... in the Loop’s case, the most expensive part of this, the cut and spoil removal is already done. Bridging the road will cost only a few percent of the total development cost.
People saying no-one is going to pay for redevelopment of Goodison need to realise..... NO-ONE is paying for Kirkby except Everton, The North west Development agency and a tiny input from cross funding that is shrinking all the time. The stadium cost is just £100m, NWDA giving £10m+, Everton £78m+ . Any enabling behind the Park end will realise its full value to the club and won’t be much less than that provided by the whole of destination Kirkby which quite frankly has been a complete red herring!
So the synopsis is we will be going to Kirkby, with a transport strategy that is shown to be still unviable, to an out of town site which opposes all modern stadium planning philosophy...... all for the the equivalent of just £12m cross funding, or half of one stand!
I find it a bit rich that the people who by their own admissions don't get to the games anymore, should want to tell us match goers that, although they wont be going to Kirkby themselves, we should embrace it as there is no alternative.
Everton will survive forever without you guys; it won't last 5 minutes without its paying customers.
So November 2009 is the new date for Evertonians to worry about, no doubt, that date too will be delayed due to unforseen circumstances and put back to March 2010.
Then we will be in the run up to a General Election and it will not be possible to make such an important decision until a new administration is formed.
Cue new Government having to take a fresh look at the proposals causing a further delay until September 2010.
Will BK still be the owner by this time? Will we care where we are playing ? Will Tesco have gotten tired of waiting?
Will LFC have their new stadium up and running before we have laid a foundation stone?
This soap opera seems to run and run with no obvious advantage to Everton Football Club or its supporters.
Maybe we will remain at Goodison for the next ten years without having to spend a fortune on its upkeep.
Then we will be in the run up to a General Election and it will not be possible to make such an important decision until a new administration is formed.
Cue new Government having to take a fresh look at the proposals causing a further delay until September 2010.
Will BK still be the owner by this time? Will we care where we are playing ? Will Tesco have gotten tired of waiting?
Will LFC have their new stadium up and running before we have laid a foundation stone?
This soap opera seems to run and run with no obvious advantage to Everton Football Club or its supporters.
Maybe we will remain at Goodison for the next ten years without having to spend a fortune on its upkeep.
Because its a little town with 40,000 people in it Neil Pearce, not a one of the most famous cities in the world with 500,000 in it, shall I give you a list of shit little clubs next to big cities. Dont forget Neil thats one of the reasons why we were once the most succesful clubs in England because we are from a big city, with a huge population gambling with that status may cut off one of our lifelines back to that footballing status. I know it may never happen, but as I see it it will never happen outside the city of Liverpool.
If the red shite cannot secure their funding for their new stadium in the park by July I understand it could all be over for them. If thats the case, why don’t we go back to LCC and offer to take up the same piece of land as an alternative to Kirby? After all, if we can’t redevelop the Grand Old Lady then the next best thing would be to get as near to her as possible AND within the City boundaries. LCC can’t give us bull shit about the ground not been viable for a stadium construction as its been ear marked already as a stadium site.
The only people who could seriously scupper this idea would be Bill and his mates from Tesco.
C’mon Bill, think about it. You don’t wanna be remembered as the one who took the Old Lady down AND EFC out of the City. (not a good epitaph on ones grave stone is it!)
The only people who could seriously scupper this idea would be Bill and his mates from Tesco.
C’mon Bill, think about it. You don’t wanna be remembered as the one who took the Old Lady down AND EFC out of the City. (not a good epitaph on ones grave stone is it!)
Matthew - if the RS can’t afford to build a new stadium on Stanley Park, how are we going to?
News this morning about the redevelopment of the area around Central Station ? a very proactive consortium wanting to add more commercial and social benefits to the city centre. Our city is finally recovering from the self-inflicted devestation of the 60s and 70s ? what a pity that Everton want no part in it...
??Welcome to Liverpool ? Home of the Beatles and Liverpool Football Club?? ... Sickening, and all for maybe £6 miilion a year with perhaps 15,000 extra on each gate.
Morning Neil,
Point taken! I suppose the point I was making initially is that IF the RS plans were to fall thro then we know there is a space big enough within the city that could be developed if the will is there to do it (and the money of course).
I get a bit cheesed off by the endless comments made over the years by LCC that they cannot find/approve a space big enough for us within the City to develop. Its almost like they have a hidden agenda.
My own personnel preference would be to redevelop Goodison in some way shape or form. We have a ?footprint? of land there which we?ve been using since 1892 and surely it?s not rocket science to come up with something for the modern era on that same footprint and thus retain our ancestral home at the same time.
An interesting concept would by like Villa Park where they have redeveloped their Trinity Road stand which is now built over the road outside (the road actually goes thro it at some point). I believe they had similar arguments and decisions to make about Villa Park some years ago but their approach was to retain their ancestral home at any cost. I?m sure something similar could be designed for Goodison if only they would think outside the box so to speak.
A new stadium as near to Goodison as possible would be a compromise if the powers that be are hell bent on moving.
At the end of the day it?s all about WILL. Where there?s a will there?s a way. Once you have the will, the money will appear from somewhere.
Point taken! I suppose the point I was making initially is that IF the RS plans were to fall thro then we know there is a space big enough within the city that could be developed if the will is there to do it (and the money of course).
I get a bit cheesed off by the endless comments made over the years by LCC that they cannot find/approve a space big enough for us within the City to develop. Its almost like they have a hidden agenda.
My own personnel preference would be to redevelop Goodison in some way shape or form. We have a ?footprint? of land there which we?ve been using since 1892 and surely it?s not rocket science to come up with something for the modern era on that same footprint and thus retain our ancestral home at the same time.
An interesting concept would by like Villa Park where they have redeveloped their Trinity Road stand which is now built over the road outside (the road actually goes thro it at some point). I believe they had similar arguments and decisions to make about Villa Park some years ago but their approach was to retain their ancestral home at any cost. I?m sure something similar could be designed for Goodison if only they would think outside the box so to speak.
A new stadium as near to Goodison as possible would be a compromise if the powers that be are hell bent on moving.
At the end of the day it?s all about WILL. Where there?s a will there?s a way. Once you have the will, the money will appear from somewhere.
Phil, many of us think that it would be more accurate to say, certainly in the last few years, that the city (certainly the LCC) wants no part of us.
I agree that it is a huge shame. A dynamic LCC would now be knocking heads together and seeking central government backing to build a shared football stadium which would be the best north of Wembley.
I agree that it is a huge shame. A dynamic LCC would now be knocking heads together and seeking central government backing to build a shared football stadium which would be the best north of Wembley.
How ironic Neil that in 66 the best stadium north of Wembley was Goodison Park
And how shameful is the inadequacy of successive Boards in maintaining/developing the place ? we can?t blame that on the LCC.
And how shameful is the inadequacy of successive Boards in maintaining/developing the place ? we can?t blame that on the LCC.
Agreed Phil! Everton has not been well served by its boards for many years. But we are where we are now, not where we would like to be.
And I can certainly blame the LCC for being pathetic about achieving a groundshare, for quite improperly granting LFC sole use of Stanley Park, for not helping EFC to find a realistic site within the city, for blocking our Bellefield money, and, having produced nothing themselves for us, for then trying to block our option in Kirkby. That’s perhaps enough to be going on with for now.
And I can certainly blame the LCC for being pathetic about achieving a groundshare, for quite improperly granting LFC sole use of Stanley Park, for not helping EFC to find a realistic site within the city, for blocking our Bellefield money, and, having produced nothing themselves for us, for then trying to block our option in Kirkby. That’s perhaps enough to be going on with for now.
Neil,
You completely omit to say that the club has never approached LCC with regard to relocating within the city, nor on Stanley Park, nor for enlarging the footprint..... For whom should Everton’s future be the greater priority..... LCC or Everton FC? It’s not like EFC has got the whole rest of the city to consider is it? Perhaps that’s enough for LCC to be getting on with for now..... not as if they didn’t offer EFC the golden ticket of a £300m stadium development for just £30m on the most prestigious piece of real estate in the city! How far off the real issues/truth do you want to be?
You completely omit to say that the club has never approached LCC with regard to relocating within the city, nor on Stanley Park, nor for enlarging the footprint..... For whom should Everton’s future be the greater priority..... LCC or Everton FC? It’s not like EFC has got the whole rest of the city to consider is it? Perhaps that’s enough for LCC to be getting on with for now..... not as if they didn’t offer EFC the golden ticket of a £300m stadium development for just £30m on the most prestigious piece of real estate in the city! How far off the real issues/truth do you want to be?
Tom - sadly, the King’s Dock is now rather a long time ago. We all regret that lost opportunity, but is not very relevant right now. The problem is what LCC has done for us RECENTLY. Also, since probably unlike you I am in favour of a groundshare, I believe that LCC (and EFC and LFC) must take their share of the blame for not doing more to make that happen.
Neil
I have never taken issue with 4 extra miles. If we had moved to KD that would be more than 4 extra miles for me.
My main issues are:
The poor quality of stadium design with a significant amount of seats too far away from the pitch and no atmosphere. It will be built on land that will cost more to decontaminate than to make the loop suitable and we will not even own it. And worst of all the transport plans are totally unworkable.
All this for a stadium whose capacity is restricted to 50,401 and will likely be reduced even further.
So apart from a nice shiny new toilet to have a pee in the matchday experience will not be improved.
I have never taken issue with 4 extra miles. If we had moved to KD that would be more than 4 extra miles for me.
My main issues are:
The poor quality of stadium design with a significant amount of seats too far away from the pitch and no atmosphere. It will be built on land that will cost more to decontaminate than to make the loop suitable and we will not even own it. And worst of all the transport plans are totally unworkable.
All this for a stadium whose capacity is restricted to 50,401 and will likely be reduced even further.
So apart from a nice shiny new toilet to have a pee in the matchday experience will not be improved.
Neil,
It?s far more relevant than you going on about stuff that never happened or relatively trivial issues regarding Bellefield or Liverpool getting the Park etc. Liverpool got the Park because they asked for it, we didn?t, end of!
It?s far more relevant than you going on about stuff that never happened or relatively trivial issues regarding Bellefield or Liverpool getting the Park etc. Liverpool got the Park because they asked for it, we didn?t, end of!
What is the value of Bellefield will it build one stand? You inferred that the council has done nothing when quite frankly my KD example alone kills that stone dead. A project that promised to build a whole stadium. The fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the club itself has ever done any serious study of all the options renders any council involvement or lack of it as the real irrelevance, no planning applications, no site survey, no traffic management studies.....NOTHING.
The head of city planning and both council party-leading members are all Evertonian season ticket holders. The Club entered exclusivity, not the council. The club refused to meet with the council/Bestway not the other way around. The head of the city council promoted groundshare not the club. The club is in this position now because of the club...... no-one else! It?s just another smokescreen to hide DK?s problems..... and let?s face it they need some hiding!
Jay - first of all, can you quit all this decontamination stuff? You are the only person who ever mentions it! It is quite normal to have to decontaminate land before building, is hardly a huge item in the expenditure, and I am not sure that we are even paying for it rather than Tesco. So let’s not get caught up with this thing anymore. It’s irrelevant.
Your other considerations - transport and ground quality - are much more serious. On the first, I have always said that it is the one thing that really worries me. It still does. On the second - well, we are getting what we can afford. If we could afford to build The Emirates, we would. But we can’t.
I respect the position that we should therefore wait around hoping that someone buys us and pumps money into us. But let’s be realistic that this is what you are advocating. We are not building a cheaper ground in Kirkby because we prefer it to a more expensive ground. We are building it because THIS IS ALL WE CAN AFFORD.
Tom, the club didn’t enter exclusivity with Tesco five years ago - but AFTER it was clear that there was nothing affordable for us in the city. Please stop about the Loop - it was admitted at the inquiry that this was a £200M+ investment minimum. We just don’t have the money.
This is what it ALWAYS comes down to. Money. We would be building The Emirates on Stanley Park if we could afford it. Bill would LOVE it! But we don’t have the money. It is simply tiresome to repeat this over and over again.
Your other considerations - transport and ground quality - are much more serious. On the first, I have always said that it is the one thing that really worries me. It still does. On the second - well, we are getting what we can afford. If we could afford to build The Emirates, we would. But we can’t.
I respect the position that we should therefore wait around hoping that someone buys us and pumps money into us. But let’s be realistic that this is what you are advocating. We are not building a cheaper ground in Kirkby because we prefer it to a more expensive ground. We are building it because THIS IS ALL WE CAN AFFORD.
Tom, the club didn’t enter exclusivity with Tesco five years ago - but AFTER it was clear that there was nothing affordable for us in the city. Please stop about the Loop - it was admitted at the inquiry that this was a £200M+ investment minimum. We just don’t have the money.
This is what it ALWAYS comes down to. Money. We would be building The Emirates on Stanley Park if we could afford it. Bill would LOVE it! But we don’t have the money. It is simply tiresome to repeat this over and over again.
Just want to make a point about the Loop site. When it was first mentioned KEIOC didn't publish the full HOK report but made brief quotes from it.
After reading on the attached link when it was published (it's more of a briefing note than a report but I accept that there was a short-timescale involved), it seems to me that it's quite obvious that, while it CAN be done, the quite major issues of foundations, landownership, highway permission etc raised are all skirted over.
Tom, I think your comments on the ease of cut-and-cover you forget the problems of who takes ownership, the permission needed from the tunnels and also the additional safety standards that are required with new tunnels (vents, fire escapes etc).
The problems with Bidston Moss Viaduct and the tri-ownership agreement there might influence the tunnels and Merseytravel (who want a tram to Kirkby) as tunnel owners decision on allowing covering the loop road.
With the additional design costs of the stadium design, I would fully expect EFC to consider these too risky issues to undertake and they quite rightly dismiss it. I don?t think KEIOC supporting this site is doing itself any favours.
For city centre sites the focus should be on the rundown/mixed industrial land north of Leeds Street rather than the loop. Using the empty car parks at the weekend around Old Hall St and Moorfields station will help address transport issues of a new stadium. A Stadium would be great as part of an area wide regen plan for this area and helps support this part of the city centre which is dead at weekends.
http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%20Evidence/KEIOC_INQ_1.pdf
After reading on the attached link when it was published (it's more of a briefing note than a report but I accept that there was a short-timescale involved), it seems to me that it's quite obvious that, while it CAN be done, the quite major issues of foundations, landownership, highway permission etc raised are all skirted over.
Tom, I think your comments on the ease of cut-and-cover you forget the problems of who takes ownership, the permission needed from the tunnels and also the additional safety standards that are required with new tunnels (vents, fire escapes etc).
The problems with Bidston Moss Viaduct and the tri-ownership agreement there might influence the tunnels and Merseytravel (who want a tram to Kirkby) as tunnel owners decision on allowing covering the loop road.
With the additional design costs of the stadium design, I would fully expect EFC to consider these too risky issues to undertake and they quite rightly dismiss it. I don?t think KEIOC supporting this site is doing itself any favours.
For city centre sites the focus should be on the rundown/mixed industrial land north of Leeds Street rather than the loop. Using the empty car parks at the weekend around Old Hall St and Moorfields station will help address transport issues of a new stadium. A Stadium would be great as part of an area wide regen plan for this area and helps support this part of the city centre which is dead at weekends.
http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%20Evidence/KEIOC_INQ_1.pdf
Neil,
"We are not building a cheaper ground in Kirkby because we prefer it to a more expensive ground. We are building it because THIS IS ALL WE CAN AFFORD."
So, where are the studies showing what the same amount could create at Goodison? Where is the result of the design competition were stadium architects were invited to tender their ideas? If this hasn’t been done..... how do you know it’s the only thing we can afford. If a £30m investment could help yield a £300m stadium development at Kings Dock what could an £80m investment do at the Loop or any other central site where transport/loss of identity wont be an issue? Where are the studies showing this assessment....... Check Spurs studies for redevelopment of WHL, and how they looked at the options....... show me anything remotely comparable from our club. You can’t!
"Tom, the club didn?t enter exclusivity with Tesco five years ago - but AFTER it was clear that there was nothing affordable for us in the city. Please stop about the Loop - it was admitted at the inquiry that this was a £200M+ investment minimum. We just don?t have the money."
Tell me of any company who wishes to explore all the options entering an exclusivity deal? Exclusivity was demanded by Tesco because they knew they couldn’t afford any options to prosper if they were to get their shops. BK’s backers are ALL retail men with a vested interest in getting what they can’t have without us in Kirkby! BK is beholden to them as they have underwrote his chairmanship. The Loop design is for a concept including sliding roof, moving pitch, 2 triple-decker stands and hotel complex. The £200m+ costing your so desperate to use as evidence does not apply to building barr’s design on the Loop, where it will cost precisely the same as it does in Kirkby.
"This is what it ALWAYS comes down to. Money. We would be building The Emirates on Stanley Park if we could afford it. Bill would LOVE it! But we don?t have the money. It is simply tiresome to repeat this over and over again"
But you are the only one ever mentioning the emirates or Stanley Park! You can have the Barr design on the Loop with probably greater grants and NWDA money than you will ever get in Kirkby, not to mention some of the broader enabling scope seen elsewhere in the city centre...... and without the major public inquiry!
"We are not building a cheaper ground in Kirkby because we prefer it to a more expensive ground. We are building it because THIS IS ALL WE CAN AFFORD."
So, where are the studies showing what the same amount could create at Goodison? Where is the result of the design competition were stadium architects were invited to tender their ideas? If this hasn’t been done..... how do you know it’s the only thing we can afford. If a £30m investment could help yield a £300m stadium development at Kings Dock what could an £80m investment do at the Loop or any other central site where transport/loss of identity wont be an issue? Where are the studies showing this assessment....... Check Spurs studies for redevelopment of WHL, and how they looked at the options....... show me anything remotely comparable from our club. You can’t!
"Tom, the club didn?t enter exclusivity with Tesco five years ago - but AFTER it was clear that there was nothing affordable for us in the city. Please stop about the Loop - it was admitted at the inquiry that this was a £200M+ investment minimum. We just don?t have the money."
Tell me of any company who wishes to explore all the options entering an exclusivity deal? Exclusivity was demanded by Tesco because they knew they couldn’t afford any options to prosper if they were to get their shops. BK’s backers are ALL retail men with a vested interest in getting what they can’t have without us in Kirkby! BK is beholden to them as they have underwrote his chairmanship. The Loop design is for a concept including sliding roof, moving pitch, 2 triple-decker stands and hotel complex. The £200m+ costing your so desperate to use as evidence does not apply to building barr’s design on the Loop, where it will cost precisely the same as it does in Kirkby.
"This is what it ALWAYS comes down to. Money. We would be building The Emirates on Stanley Park if we could afford it. Bill would LOVE it! But we don?t have the money. It is simply tiresome to repeat this over and over again"
But you are the only one ever mentioning the emirates or Stanley Park! You can have the Barr design on the Loop with probably greater grants and NWDA money than you will ever get in Kirkby, not to mention some of the broader enabling scope seen elsewhere in the city centre...... and without the major public inquiry!
Les,
How more onerous are those concerns than ones for a stadium that has a transport strategy that is in its umpteeth revision and still unviable, to the extent that Knowsley council are now covering their backsides with a capacity reduction clause.
That said, the covering of the cutting need not necessarily be continuous, but a series of bridging sections, all achievable in night-time possessions as achieved with railway and motorway bridges. The Tunnels are regularly closed (alternately) for night work in any case. Full access on the Scotland road side is readily achieved, which alone would give the stadium better access than most stadia including the Emirates and the Millennium stadium. I agree that there are several brownfield sites in the vicinity that may be less problematic.
I don?t believe this is an issue for the club. They aren?t prepared to consider it because they aren?t the drivers in this scheme, and that?s the end of that!
How more onerous are those concerns than ones for a stadium that has a transport strategy that is in its umpteeth revision and still unviable, to the extent that Knowsley council are now covering their backsides with a capacity reduction clause.
That said, the covering of the cutting need not necessarily be continuous, but a series of bridging sections, all achievable in night-time possessions as achieved with railway and motorway bridges. The Tunnels are regularly closed (alternately) for night work in any case. Full access on the Scotland road side is readily achieved, which alone would give the stadium better access than most stadia including the Emirates and the Millennium stadium. I agree that there are several brownfield sites in the vicinity that may be less problematic.
I don?t believe this is an issue for the club. They aren?t prepared to consider it because they aren?t the drivers in this scheme, and that?s the end of that!
I have tried the sane approach so often on this subject that finally I have to resort to simplicity.
Kirkby has nothing to do with what we can or can?t afford. We have to find £80m no matter where or what we do. NO ONE is giving us anything. Penny droppped yet??
Kirkby is a square peg in a round hole that we are being sold as the ONLY option. It's not, it's the only option we are given whilst all else is ridiculed.
If another board of directors, owners etc came in, the chances are they would have THEIR best option and it's improbable that they would even consider Kirkby.
I don?t CARE what RS build, where they build or how much in debt they go into. They are Liverpool FC, They will ALWAYS receive preferential treatment over Everton so park it and move on.
What I do care about is the abject surrender by the club to remaining in the the city and its traditional home. For all of you who don't care, listen to the bloody words you sing on a match day... if you know your history.... well if you do you know where we belong.
Tom Hughes has argued until he is blue in the face (which admittedly is more to do with his blue blood...) and still people don?t get it. Michael K at the very start hit the nail on the head, The board doesn't have the desire or the will to stay and no matter what you argue as an acceptance to Kirkby it is disgraceful that such a move is done without even considering other options. (Please DO NOT state that they have... seriously, if they had, where are the feasibility studies they have carried out on ANY alternative?)
This has always been a deal that's been done behind closed doors on a handshake, a you scratch my back... effort that only a government inquiry can scupper.
I don't cling to tradition and ignore reality, but I for one want a great deal more honesty, transparency and choice before I ever would agree that Kirkby is the best choice for the club at ANY time in its life.
I would rather have a refurbished Goodison with all its possible quirks that a shed in Kirkby with all the complications added to wanting to watch a game of football...
With every passing day, the justification to redevelop GP makes more sense to sensible people... except unfortunately our board, who have ALL STATED that they are WILLING to SELL THEIR SHARES once a new stadium deal in Kirkby is done. Funny that, I look forward to seeing resignations from the board and chairman if DK gets thrown out? I doubt it. But it will be amusing to see the spin...
Kirkby has nothing to do with what we can or can?t afford. We have to find £80m no matter where or what we do. NO ONE is giving us anything. Penny droppped yet??
Kirkby is a square peg in a round hole that we are being sold as the ONLY option. It's not, it's the only option we are given whilst all else is ridiculed.
If another board of directors, owners etc came in, the chances are they would have THEIR best option and it's improbable that they would even consider Kirkby.
I don?t CARE what RS build, where they build or how much in debt they go into. They are Liverpool FC, They will ALWAYS receive preferential treatment over Everton so park it and move on.
What I do care about is the abject surrender by the club to remaining in the the city and its traditional home. For all of you who don't care, listen to the bloody words you sing on a match day... if you know your history.... well if you do you know where we belong.
Tom Hughes has argued until he is blue in the face (which admittedly is more to do with his blue blood...) and still people don?t get it. Michael K at the very start hit the nail on the head, The board doesn't have the desire or the will to stay and no matter what you argue as an acceptance to Kirkby it is disgraceful that such a move is done without even considering other options. (Please DO NOT state that they have... seriously, if they had, where are the feasibility studies they have carried out on ANY alternative?)
This has always been a deal that's been done behind closed doors on a handshake, a you scratch my back... effort that only a government inquiry can scupper.
I don't cling to tradition and ignore reality, but I for one want a great deal more honesty, transparency and choice before I ever would agree that Kirkby is the best choice for the club at ANY time in its life.
I would rather have a refurbished Goodison with all its possible quirks that a shed in Kirkby with all the complications added to wanting to watch a game of football...
With every passing day, the justification to redevelop GP makes more sense to sensible people... except unfortunately our board, who have ALL STATED that they are WILLING to SELL THEIR SHARES once a new stadium deal in Kirkby is done. Funny that, I look forward to seeing resignations from the board and chairman if DK gets thrown out? I doubt it. But it will be amusing to see the spin...
I?ve said this before and I?ll repeat it again. I can see this Kirkby move (assuming the Board get their wish) creating a huge split in the fanbase. I can imagine there will be plans to form an FC Everton type tribute club (a la FC United of Manchester, and FC Liverpool), probably within weeks of any move.
The whole subject has been handled so appallingly by the club that it has totally alienated the club?s fanbase. This isn't just about moving out of Liverpool, it isn't just about leaving Goodison. It's to do with the way us (the fans) are dealt with.
The sheer lack of interest in any other option. The stubbornness of the Board to not acknowledge there is any other destination for our club. And perhaps the crucial factor ? the key selling point we were fed at ballot time was "a World Class Stadium for nothing". This has now been translated as "Mid-range to basic" and costing us £80M+... Unforgivable!
Tom,
My post wasn?t agreeing with the Kirkby proposals, I actually made an objection to the planning inspector on the Transport proposals (the main issue as I see it concerning Kirkby).
I think you're missing the point of my post, it's not the engineering aspect of covering the tunnel or providing bridges (which is still expensive and time-consuming), it's the legal and ownership issue; I don?t think the Tunnels will want it to happen (if that is justifiable reason or not).
KEIOC seem to indicate that the HOK report says one thing (it's Great!!), yet when I read it, it's saying another (it's Complex!!) ie, has lots of risky, time-consuming, possibly expensive issues to address, let alone building a stadium to go with it. Maybe other posters can read it on the link from my earlier post and make their own mind up.
So for me (and I think others), the promotion of the loop site is making KEIOC look like Championship Manager fantatists (but for stadiums); they should have some more realism and concentrate on Goodision (plenty of examples of redeveloped grounds) or a more realistic/achievable City Centre Site (like those in America that have been highlighted in other places before).
The above is is meant to be positive criticism, it feels that KEIOC promote other options as having all positives and no negatives, while every site has both both pluses and minuses and in reality, if placed in a table, some of these are better in the long-term than Kirkby.
My post wasn?t agreeing with the Kirkby proposals, I actually made an objection to the planning inspector on the Transport proposals (the main issue as I see it concerning Kirkby).
I think you're missing the point of my post, it's not the engineering aspect of covering the tunnel or providing bridges (which is still expensive and time-consuming), it's the legal and ownership issue; I don?t think the Tunnels will want it to happen (if that is justifiable reason or not).
KEIOC seem to indicate that the HOK report says one thing (it's Great!!), yet when I read it, it's saying another (it's Complex!!) ie, has lots of risky, time-consuming, possibly expensive issues to address, let alone building a stadium to go with it. Maybe other posters can read it on the link from my earlier post and make their own mind up.
So for me (and I think others), the promotion of the loop site is making KEIOC look like Championship Manager fantatists (but for stadiums); they should have some more realism and concentrate on Goodision (plenty of examples of redeveloped grounds) or a more realistic/achievable City Centre Site (like those in America that have been highlighted in other places before).
The above is is meant to be positive criticism, it feels that KEIOC promote other options as having all positives and no negatives, while every site has both both pluses and minuses and in reality, if placed in a table, some of these are better in the long-term than Kirkby.
I really don’t believe this board is capable of delivering a new stadium in Kirkby, or anywhere else, so the club will be stuck as it is until there is a change of ownership.
It still amazes me that there are still people who fall for the hype regarding the Kirkby proposal, though.
It still amazes me that there are still people who fall for the hype regarding the Kirkby proposal, though.
Christine, you really are wrong on affordability. "We have to find £80M no matter where or what we do". Nope. Are LFC building on Stanley Park for £80M? I think not - £300M more like. Any number quoted for the Loop site puts it well in excess of £200M.
The problem is we would have to find a great deal more than £80M for ANY other conceivable new build option. That really has been the point all along. It is even very debateable that £80M will even do what is necessary to properly upgrade GP.
Money and affordability is still at the very nub of the issue for us, as much as we all might want to wish it away.
The respectable alternative to Kirkby is to agree that we can’t afford anything else right now and should sit tight and wait and see if a rich new owner comes to rescue us and brings new more expensive options. Not to continue to fantasize that we can afford other exciting and expensive options now. We can’t.
The problem is we would have to find a great deal more than £80M for ANY other conceivable new build option. That really has been the point all along. It is even very debateable that £80M will even do what is necessary to properly upgrade GP.
Money and affordability is still at the very nub of the issue for us, as much as we all might want to wish it away.
The respectable alternative to Kirkby is to agree that we can’t afford anything else right now and should sit tight and wait and see if a rich new owner comes to rescue us and brings new more expensive options. Not to continue to fantasize that we can afford other exciting and expensive options now. We can’t.
The longer this farce has gone on, the more I?m convinced Robert Earl and Philip Green are the ones who are pushing Kirkby and it?s out of Kenwright's hands. When he?s been cornered at various functions, like in London a few months back, his response with a shrug of the shoulders is "I don?t know, I?m just a supporter like you." He obviously feels very uneasy about the whole thing...= and so he should. If my thoughts are true then he should be taken to the tower and charged with treason.
Neil Pearse, you keep on defending the Kirkby proposal but when asked to name one thing that ticks a box, just one positive thing, you never reply ? why is that? Please don?t come back with the "It?s all we can afford" crap.
The Adelphi needs redeveloping to attract more customers; Tesco Terry says we will build you a new hotel out in Kirkby... the second word from Eileen would be "off." Can you understand why Neil?
Neil, two points:
1. We are not building for £80 million ? the cost is likely to be £150 million with cross-subsidies and other tasters reducing it to the claimed £80 million ? only nobody has seen the figures yet because EFC won't release them (I wonder why?)
2. Liverpool's proposed stadium is (I hate to say it) truly World Class and they would refuse to build anything else.
Neil,
Whilst I agree with you that a joint stadium would be a truly sensible option, you have priced this at £300M. If we can only afford £80M, which is why you are saying everyone should just look beyond any objection about Kirkby, pressumably the RS would put in an equal share (given we wouldn’t really be indebted to them). So then who’d stick in the additional £140M?
Would that be LCC’s responsibility, otherwise they’d be labelled as cunts who not only want to get rid of us but football as a whole from the city? Naming rights... I mean if Tesco would alledgedly be prepared to pay £80M as some clown stated elsewhere, then surely for the self-proclaimed "Wembley of the North" they’d stump up what is seen by some as practically nothing... er, right?
Whilst I agree with you that a joint stadium would be a truly sensible option, you have priced this at £300M. If we can only afford £80M, which is why you are saying everyone should just look beyond any objection about Kirkby, pressumably the RS would put in an equal share (given we wouldn’t really be indebted to them). So then who’d stick in the additional £140M?
Would that be LCC’s responsibility, otherwise they’d be labelled as cunts who not only want to get rid of us but football as a whole from the city? Naming rights... I mean if Tesco would alledgedly be prepared to pay £80M as some clown stated elsewhere, then surely for the self-proclaimed "Wembley of the North" they’d stump up what is seen by some as practically nothing... er, right?
Neil
As often discussed prior, the £80m is a very conservative figure that still has to be found IRRESPECTIVE of what the club wants to do with it. I am NOT advocating that it is the SOLE COST of any solution.
Indeed the likely cost to Everton FC for DK will probably exceed £100m. The real question is therefore what can be done with the £100m that would be ear-maked for Kirkby as opposed to other solutions that may not require the upfront payment. (Such as an ongoing redevelopment of GP.)
As often discussed prior, the £80m is a very conservative figure that still has to be found IRRESPECTIVE of what the club wants to do with it. I am NOT advocating that it is the SOLE COST of any solution.
Indeed the likely cost to Everton FC for DK will probably exceed £100m. The real question is therefore what can be done with the £100m that would be ear-maked for Kirkby as opposed to other solutions that may not require the upfront payment. (Such as an ongoing redevelopment of GP.)
Your comments regarding ANY solution costing more is not the only criteria to be assessed ?it's time. When we can afford to pay, where do we get the best value for money without sacrificing everything in pursuit of a sale of the club?
IF, as we can assume, we are broke, then why commit to such a risky venture, the business case (forgetting the tradition etc.. the fact its a business and not a way of life to so many of us) ? the business case for Kirkby doesn?t stack up and never has.
With each tenuious break of a promise or expectation the DK project has long since fallen over the point at which it is no longer a sensible, viable business proposal.
Is Kirkby worth doing for the return on investment???? Assuming full houses every game and a possible £6m improvement??? For all the crap that will have to be endured? For all the sacrificing of the fans?
Nope sorry, Neil... it doesn?t stack up and never will. Too many show-stoppers.
Alternatives? Given the economic climate, stay were we are and redevelop... You know it makes sense.
The £80 million cost EFC have to find according to Alan Jackson on Radio Merseyside is for the interior of the Kirkby stadia ? Tesco will only provide the shell & Knowsley MBC the land FOC!
It's appalling when the ballot was for a free affordable stadia that would not affect our transfer budget! We urgently need outside investment & not from Tesco, a billionaire company who would want a top class stadia in the city or a redevelopment of Goodison Park, & transfer funds to be made available to DM ASAP!
The cost of the Kirkby stadia & Tesco development must have certainly risen since the Public Inquiry & the delay will just push the cost higher & higher ? that's why a plan B should have been put in place, Mr BK!!!!!!
It's appalling when the ballot was for a free affordable stadia that would not affect our transfer budget! We urgently need outside investment & not from Tesco, a billionaire company who would want a top class stadia in the city or a redevelopment of Goodison Park, & transfer funds to be made available to DM ASAP!
The cost of the Kirkby stadia & Tesco development must have certainly risen since the Public Inquiry & the delay will just push the cost higher & higher ? that's why a plan B should have been put in place, Mr BK!!!!!!
I feel a little bit in the firing line for someone for whom Kirkby is my definite SECOND choice, but here goes on a few things....
On the joint stadium, I do not think we would be fully equal partners (sorry ? we are the poorer). But that would mean that we took a lower share of additional revenues that did not accrue directly to us. Still, better to get a smaller share of something big, than a bigger share of much less... And I think such a stadium could attract massively more sponsorship and investment if ?sold? correctly ? which, admittedly, is probably beyond LCC / LFC / EFC. But in theory if ?the stadium of the north? is not fundable, than who knows what else is?
On Kirkby, one of the unspokens is whether it will attract a new owner with more money who could transform our club. I personally think that it might well, although the financial crisis is certainly reducing that probability. I think that all the evidence suggests that we will not get a new owner with GP (there?s been plenty of chance).
On the joint stadium, I do not think we would be fully equal partners (sorry ? we are the poorer). But that would mean that we took a lower share of additional revenues that did not accrue directly to us. Still, better to get a smaller share of something big, than a bigger share of much less... And I think such a stadium could attract massively more sponsorship and investment if ?sold? correctly ? which, admittedly, is probably beyond LCC / LFC / EFC. But in theory if ?the stadium of the north? is not fundable, than who knows what else is?
On Kirkby, one of the unspokens is whether it will attract a new owner with more money who could transform our club. I personally think that it might well, although the financial crisis is certainly reducing that probability. I think that all the evidence suggests that we will not get a new owner with GP (there?s been plenty of chance).
And I am less pessimistic about the match experience. Transport is a big worry indeed, and I am not denying that for one moment, but we have years to go yet, and so despair is not yet in order. And I don?t personally think that the atmosphere etc. needs to be shit there. "WE ARE EVERTON" as Jay Harris put it.
All the worrying about costs is mostly beside the point. Every factor driving up the costs at Kirkby would just as much drive up the costs anywhere else. (You don?t think there are uncertainties and potential delays about building on the Loop??)
What has always mattered is the costs of Kirkby RELATIVE TO other real alternatives ? not relative to what Keith Wyness foolishly said two years ago.
Christine, finally, as I said ? I think there is much to be said for ?sitting tight and hoping something turns up?. (My target for years on Toffeeweb has more been the fantasists who think we have a divine right and the money for the world class stadium NOW.) But that has its risks too. No one may show up to rescue us. The £6M may seem peanuts (I think it may be a bit conservative anyway) ? but it is better than nothing, and is also an amount that can be borrowed against, and so is worth more to club.
There are no easy options here because we are poor. Mainly that is all I say on here. Kirkby is a plausible but imperfect attempt to try to break out of this trap. The vitriol directed against it is largely a cry of pain that we are not the Mersey Millionaires anymore.
I have to admire your charitable comment about Mr Wyness’s erm foolish comments Neil.
Rich, I was never a big fan of Wyness, and have said repeatedly that his PR handling of Kirkby was atrocious. I think we are all glad to see the back of him.
Phil Martin, I agree with you; as painful as it is, I would want nothing to do with this new club in Kirkby calling itself Everton FC. It will never be Everton, I wan't nothing to do with it, the people who oraganized it, and I want nothing to do with the people who are stupid, gullible or in on it, the people who've supported it. I won't be one of them and thats it.
If it comes to setting up a new club, admittedly it'll be shit to begin with, let's say Real Everton or Everton City of Liverpool, ECL for short... St Domingo's... then it would mean more to me than anything in Kirkby. I don't care if we start in North West Counties league, one thing's for sure ? there are a lot of people who feel like me, minimum 10,000 lets give Kenwright his legacy for the club. Hell, we could even call the ground Kenwright's Legacy.
He's afraid after all of being remembered as the man who took us out of the city... we could have black socks to remember the black day he destroyed our club. Maybe I'll get some sleep tonight but I doubt it while this disgusting saga continues. Roll on November.
Neil,
"The vitriol directed against it is largely a cry of pain that we are not the Mersey Millionaires anymore."
Not at all, I?ve known we weren?t the Mersey Millionaires for decades! My angst is towards an ill-conceived solution to someone else?s objectives that was presented as our utopia when it never can be!
As Simon Inglis said...... if this was his team he "would be very worried", and I?m quite sure Villa were never Mersey millionaires at any point!! The criticisms of DK and the process that delivered it thus far are direct and objective.
"The vitriol directed against it is largely a cry of pain that we are not the Mersey Millionaires anymore."
Not at all, I?ve known we weren?t the Mersey Millionaires for decades! My angst is towards an ill-conceived solution to someone else?s objectives that was presented as our utopia when it never can be!
As Simon Inglis said...... if this was his team he "would be very worried", and I?m quite sure Villa were never Mersey millionaires at any point!! The criticisms of DK and the process that delivered it thus far are direct and objective.
I think the argument that "the £80M for Kirkby would be better spent on redeveloping Goodison" is way off the mark. We don?t have the £80M sitting in our back pocket ? it is a loan secured against the Kirkby development. Without Kirkby, the loan will not be forthcoming.
We are skint, we have no money to develop Goodison; however, if we move to Kirkby, someone will lend us £80M to cover our costs. They will not lend us 80M to redevelop Goodison.
Tony, How do you know that?
As just one example of many... Sheffield Utd have recently secured funds to redevelop their stadium in situ including stand extensions Business centre and Hotel. Everton are much higher profile than they are, in a far more up and coming city and sitting on a main arterial route into that city.
Furthermore who says we need £80m straight away at Goodison? Only gradual development can mean smaller loans. What value could be derived by redeveloping the Park End as a Hotel/conference type development on land that WE own? Don?t forget Kirkby?s retail is only yielding approx £12m maximum funding.
That?s all before you take into account the transport fiasco that is no nearer resolution now than it was in 2007... Goodison does not have these problems! Then there is the likes of the Loop or any other brownfield site... given the far richer development scope downtown what kind of loans could be secured on a genuine state of the art development there...
The Kings Dock demonstrated the richer pickings there, and the higher performance factoring of a downtown stadium. Kirkby can never do this... and again could be extremely damaging in terms of identity and loss of heritage.
Tom, I?m not saying it?s impossible to obtain a loan to redevelop Goodison, only that the £80M loan we have available for Kirkby is just that ? available for Kirkby. It is not £80M to spend as we see fit.
And I think it is misleading to state that the £80M would be better spent elsewhere. If we don?t spend it on Kirkby, it will not be available. There are enough reasons to oppose the Kirkby move without having to resort to distorting the truth (not you in particular, just that argument in general).
Tony,
Then you are the only person in the world who knows that EFC have secured a loan for £80m pending Kirkby getting the go ahead.....
Then you are the only person in the world who knows that EFC have secured a loan for £80m pending Kirkby getting the go ahead.....
Do you own the bank? If so, you need to contact EFC and tell them because even they certainly aren?t saying they have secured such a loan and that it is dependent on Kirkby alone...... indeed, they are currently trying to securitize naming rights that they said they would have in the bag!
I do believe £80m would be better spent elsewhere for all the obvious reasons and more. I gave very direct examples.... £30m would?ve secured a £300m stadium development on Kings Dock compared to £80m getting you a basic £100m stadium in the sticks..... As far as "misleading" is concerned, you need look no further than the ballot literature!
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
Two things actually: they don't have the money either. Without those, it ain't gonna happen.
But this is probably another letter that doesn't mean anything to you because it doesn't provide the answer you want to hear...
Oh, there is a third reason, but Neil Pearse (Where are you, Neil?) gets very upset when I mention it, and that is the effect that Destination Kirkby will have, if approved, on the overall net valuation of Everton FC Co Ltd ? increasing it at stroke by something like £50M. The current custodians cannot help but be strongly persuaded by such an upside... assuming it is still on the table in these trying economic times.