"Liverpool to develop Anfield" -- So Everton should now apply for planning permission to build a stadium on the park. This could attract investment and the Council could hardly refuse... could they??
Bobby Morgan, Posted 15/10/2010 at 15:55:46
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 15/10/2010 at 17:40:07
So it's back to the old-school on Sunday. Osman and Neville in midfield with Hibbert at right back.
I dont know when the council has ever gone with the blues do you? They refused us the site before and will find a way to screw us over again.
2 Posted 15/10/2010 at 18:02:28
"Eye of newt, piece of bark, move us into Stanley Park. Ear of bat, tails of foxes, see those lovely corporate boxes. Hind legs from seven ewes, think of increased revenues. A ground in the park, that's our mission, no need to apply for planning permission" - from the bumper book of spells, M.Thatcher.
The spell might seem a long-shot, but it's nowhere NEAR as fanciful as the idea that Everton might pay for it
3 Posted 15/10/2010 at 19:09:41
4 Posted 15/10/2010 at 19:56:58
Bobby - good point, and it makes sense but I tend to agree with Alex. Furthermore you would think that Kenwrong would be straight on the phone to the Singaporean lad who pulled out of buying Liverpool in order to do a selling job to him for Everton. But our board seems to lack the nouse and the dynamism to pick up on opportunities like this or like Stanley Park, so even if we did have a bit of cash, we have the wrong board of directors.
5 Posted 15/10/2010 at 21:01:00
6 Posted 15/10/2010 at 21:03:29
will I be King one day.
7 Posted 15/10/2010 at 21:31:10
8 Posted 15/10/2010 at 22:01:14
Not only have EFC never applied for permission to develop Stanley Park but most of the LCC staff refused to ever deal with Kenwright again after the KD fiasco.
Only a new owner would stand any chance with LCC.
9 Posted 15/10/2010 at 22:23:10
Johnson was the last one to ask, me thinks it gave them the idea and they then coerced the council.
10 Posted 15/10/2010 at 22:49:49
11 Posted 16/10/2010 at 02:34:00
Perhaps someone can educate me as to what exactly BK did to lose us Kings Dock "single-handedly". A great loss to our club, no matter whose fault it was - though how we can't see past the one fella I will never know. We always need a scapegoat. Personally I dont think BK is purposely holding us back, and if there is a viable alternative, please speak up. The LCC has a lot to answer for. If Stanley Park is now an option, something has to happen.
12 Posted 16/10/2010 at 06:16:38
Bill Kenwright had led the charge regarding Kings Dock; he had waxed lyrical about it, he had championed it; it was very much "his" project. But, when it came to the crucial "show us the money" moment (oh the irony!), he had none ? you know, the stuff that Kenwright himself had repeatedly said was "ring-fenced"... nadda!
But his friend Paul Gregg, who, it is believed, had bought his (and his family's) Everton shares primarily on the anticipation of a project like Kings Dock being developed by Everton, stepped up and offered to provide the £30M finance needed to save the project and keep it moving forward.
So here we had a major Everton shareholder offering to fund the biggest and most fantastic Everton stadium project imaginable. The financial instrument was to be a "reverse mortgage" ? I never understood why it wasn't just a straight mortgage, but here was the crucial moment: what did Bill Kenwright do? ? "singlehandedly" or not ? that's not really the issue. He was in charge of Everton; he had put himself forward as the leading Everton decision-maker on Kings Dock.... and his decision was... ?
NO, We don't want your money!
That astounding rejection has never been fully explained to this day. Why would he reject out-of-hand an offer of the very money needed to push this incredible project forward? Well, it seems there were conditions attached... (and this is where it gets very hazy).
It seems during his short spell as an Everton Director, Paul Gregg had come to the conclusion that Bill's leadership, stewardship, management the club was lacking, and that, as a condition of the funding, Bill would have to step down... relinquish control of Everton. Lose control? He was not having that... and so Everton lost the money and the project as well ? a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build an iconic Everton presence right near the city centre on the waterfront... sacrificed because HE wanted to retain control.
Nothing about that is "scapegoating"... actually come to think of it ? I'm wrong about that. The incredible thing is that Kenwright and his chums (he definitely did not do this bit "singlehandedly") proceeded to blackball and publicly vilify Paul Gregg! The tables were amazingly turned on him, this non-Evertonian, who never went to the games ? remember, he'd been bought in by Bill to help him buy the club off Johnson in the first place!!!
We'll probably never know the full reasons behind this but it is surely crystal clear that Gregg and Kenwright increasingly diverged from being friends to one being publicly scapegoated by the other! To me, that's how Bill Kenwright came to be primarily responsible for the collapse of he Kings Dick project ? his rejection of Gregg's offer to finance the project.
If I've made any errors or unreasonable inferences, please step forward and correct me. But please, any Bill supporters who have a problem with this telling of the "story", I implore you to not come forward with your insults and put-downs. Just explain, if you can, why this was the right decision for Everton? Why this was Bill Kenwright acting in the best interests of the Club? I'd love to know.
13 Posted 16/10/2010 at 08:28:18
If dramatic and monumental changes were to happen at Everton, do you think would Mr Gregg be willing to join the fold again?
Or was this "reverse mortgage" like loading debt onto the Club. Sorry, I don't really understand this term fully and if he had £30m in the bank to lend to Everton.
14 Posted 16/10/2010 at 09:18:53
I think we missed the boat with Gregg and I am pretty sure he and Anita (his wife and true wealth in that marriage) have now split but stand to be corrected. Part of that deal included Lord Grantchester but the rumour (again stand to be corrected) was that the matriach of the family steered him away from any dealings with BK.
It would appear that an impasse is in place with the mysterious Green as the true mouthpiece and master and any chances of progress needing BK to exit, we have more chance of winning the league.
15 Posted 16/10/2010 at 09:48:41
16 Posted 16/10/2010 at 11:00:15
My understanding is that at the time Dunford was at the club, there was an approach (not an application) by the club to LCC regarding the re-routing of Walton Lane which would have cut across an area of Stanley Park protected by (amongst other things) a Victorian covenant (the area LFC are planning to build on, does not fall under this covenant). This initial approach (again, not an application) was rejected.
17 Posted 16/10/2010 at 13:22:00
you are absolutely correct.
Every planning enquiry is in the public domain and there is no enquiry whatsoever for PP to build a stadium on Stanley Park on behalf of EFC.
Thomas #9 EFC also made out they had considered and rejected a number of alternative sites and issued a list which turned out to be a list of sites that LFC had previously rejected and that EFC had not done any research into them at all.
18 Posted 16/10/2010 at 13:31:07
19 Posted 17/10/2010 at 00:46:18
"Claws of eagles, beaks of hens, today they won't get iffy pens. Spit of Badger, ear of cat, a sending off for the big Greek twat. Beetle's head, Weasel's knee, a broken ankle for Stevie G. Teeth and tongue from baby Gnus, full time 2-0 to the blues"
(it's a gift!)
20 Posted 17/10/2010 at 09:33:47
Regards the lcc they have done nothing for us, we are treated like a long distance relative who you know about but arent really bothered about.
21 Posted 17/10/2010 at 09:38:37
This would save us a lot of time etc. and would be a great deal.
The only stumbling block then is finance!
22 Posted 17/10/2010 at 10:40:51
23 Posted 17/10/2010 at 13:15:42
I would have thought the part about entering into a reverse mortgage would be the key part of your post, Michael. It is, after all, the part that deals with major money and significant long term effects. Depending on the conditions of that reverse mortgage it could have signalled the end of Everton somewhere down the line (neither I nor, seemingly, you know what the trigger would be for the debt coming back onto the club).
Could we have ever hoped to pay it? Could we even have expected to borrow it? I suspect we'd be living in a stadium we didn't own, could not afford, and which would ultimately send us out of business.
That's the important issue isn't it? If I'm wrong and this was free of risk then I'll happily admit I'm not in possession of the full facts.
24 Posted 17/10/2010 at 15:41:01
the land belongs to the council not LFC.
It doesnt matter who applied for PP it is ultimately the council's decision who they allow to build on it.
What we have to bear in mind is the additional cost of building a stadium from new as opposed to redeveloping an existing stadium.
Very few clubs can afford to build a new stadium without grant assistance or some gifts (e.g. Eastlands) and now that grant money is not available (particularly to the level it was for KD) clubs are looking at redeveloping their own stadia.
25 Posted 17/10/2010 at 17:16:36
Next time I'll do the score as a bet as well as a spell.
Anyone else need any help?
Any aches, pains...
26 Posted 18/10/2010 at 00:50:33
27 Posted 18/10/2010 at 21:29:53
Can't say that I 100% believe it myself. But it would be a good idea.
Jay, yes it is the councils land, however what it would mean is that Everton do not have to go through the bollocks of getting planning themselves.
Similar to buying a field where the seller has already got planning for a house...
It is actually quite a big hurdle taken away.
Anyway its a rumour.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.