So Liverpool FC have until April to finalise their stadium plans to the council before their current planning permission expires.
Although Kenwright will probably deny that Stanley Park exists, I hope Everton get something together to provide the council a Plan B for the site. I have a feeling though that a ground share might be the first choice for Liverpool's new owners.
Tommy Coleman, Posted 25/10/2010 at 13:43:59
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 25/10/2010 at 14:52:05
2 Posted 25/10/2010 at 14:49:15
3 Posted 25/10/2010 at 15:34:10
4 Posted 25/10/2010 at 15:48:53
5 Posted 25/10/2010 at 15:52:29
By the way, can you let your Seamus know that Tim Cahill didn't mean to blank him after scoring in the Derby. (See previous letter from mailbag yesterday.)
6 Posted 25/10/2010 at 15:55:09
7 Posted 25/10/2010 at 18:47:27
If there's something you know and we/I dont, then tell us.
As far as the ground goes it's re-develope all the way. And anyway who wants a ground that isn't called Goodison. Not me for one.
8 Posted 25/10/2010 at 19:10:34
Kilfoyle also thought going to Kirkby would be good for Walton as it would take away congestion on a match day. Strange that because he thought a 60,000+ stadium would help the Anfield area only a mile away...
Anfield lost a sports centre on these broken promises. I can't see Liverpool's new owner putting money into the Anfield area. It's far cheaper to redevelope which most r/s fans would go for now.
Forget the left-overs of Stanley Park and maybe a slow redevelopment of Goodison will have to do.
9 Posted 25/10/2010 at 23:11:11
Redevelopment is the only option that offers updated facilities in bite-size, affordable phases. It is also the only one that gives complete continuity, in terms of history/tradition/identity and time-proven transport and infrastructure. It is also the only one that offers the opportunity to create something unique combining contemporary and classic stadium design... and on the site of the world's first true football stadium. There are more than a few positives there. Real, high-value positives that will not be readily transferrable to ANY new build!
The club should commission a design competition for all stadium design companies working in conjunction with the city planning department to explore ALL the options for the current site. I think people would be more than pleasantly surprised at the outcomes.
10 Posted 26/10/2010 at 00:21:28
11 Posted 26/10/2010 at 02:32:49
The only way forward IMO is for the council to get the funding for a joint superstadium and sports complex together with commercial enabling facilities and then enter into a joint mortgage or subsidised lease with both clubs.
BTW, I can't see that happening either.
The men of Vision have no vision.
12 Posted 26/10/2010 at 02:59:50
13 Posted 26/10/2010 at 08:38:26
You say it can be done in "affordable phases", but who is going to pay for these phases? As far as i was aware the current board members do not have sufficient funds?
14 Posted 26/10/2010 at 09:13:09
Billy Bullshit, even as I write, is busy ring-fencing the money for either option.
Watch this space!
As for the rs, they can fuck off to a green field site in Norway and get 60,000 Shankley red Norwegians to every game
The City's all ours!
15 Posted 26/10/2010 at 09:31:20
"Everton aint going no-place in Kenwright's lifetime"
16 Posted 26/10/2010 at 09:35:59
I think Kenwright is deparate for a shared stadium as his new viable plan A and I think Liverpool's new owners will go for that because it is the cheapest option as they only took them over to earn a quick buck.
17 Posted 26/10/2010 at 09:55:27
Phases are affordable in the sense that you don't have to find funds to build an entire stadium in one go, but only a small section at a time. This may take the form of a whole new stand or just a new or extended tier with resultant increased revenues helping finance subsequent phases. Furthermore, if other value-adding facilities are built into the new capacity (hotel/conference/exhibition/residential or whatever), then much of the cost can become self-funded, as in the case of the proposed building at the Park-end for instance. This approach also gives the opportunity to gauge demand for new capacity/facilities reducing the chance of building expensive unwanted seats. Contrary to popular belief, this has been the favoured route for the majority of clubs. With many far lesser/poorer clubs than us having undertook the complete overhaul of their stadia. There are issues, particularly on the Bullens Rd side, but none are in anyway insurmountable...... of course there has to be a will to pursue this avenue!!!
18 Posted 26/10/2010 at 10:38:41
I've always thought very highly of your input. Someone who knows what they're talking about and can back up their opinions with logic, experience and fact.
If only we had a chairman of such qualities. Now I'm just off to pick up that Bentley I've alway wanted. Told the garage the money has been ringfenced and that they should watch this space.
19 Posted 26/10/2010 at 10:46:35
Thanks for the reply.
I have to ask the same question though. Who is going to pay for a new park end stand or the works to the Bullens Road etc? Have any hotel chain etc ever showed any interest in a venture in this area? Do you think everton could survive without the match day revenue whilst these stands are under construction? I would be very surprised if you could build a new stand for example solely in the summer break.
20 Posted 26/10/2010 at 11:27:50
As for enabling facilities, I just can't see anybody wanting to build a hotel in Walton. I don't think the market would be there. It could be busy occasionally on a Friday night before a home game depending on who we were playing but I just don't see the market opportunity or business sense to make it a viable enabling partner.
Hotels run on very tight margins and they depend on being generally full to capacity. I just can't see that happening in Walton for any number of reasons.
Retail is obviously a non starter or Leahy would have gone for that to get his club a new stadium.
As for residential, what precisely does that mean? Apartments built into the stadium or housing rebuild in the area? Everton don't own the land so I don't think there is much or any financial benefit in building houses, not as there is at Bellefield.
Any redevelopment of Goodison will inevitably be piecemeal I'm afraid and can only ever be a temporary solution.
21 Posted 26/10/2010 at 11:53:51
Start with putting an upper tier on the Park End of say an extra 4000 seats. This would probably take around 6/7 months so start in January,finish in August or start in May finish at Christmas, take your pick.
You lose up to 6000 sats for half a season, but with 4000 new ones you would very quickly make up the loss.
Operate with those 4000 extra seats for say 2 years giving the eqivalent of 8000 seats for a year revenue.
Then put an extra tier above and behind the Upper Bullens. This would take about a year, but the loss of 10000 seats for up to a season would be offset by the extra 8000 spaces you had gained in the previous 2 years.You would gain roughly 4000 seats by doing this, but lose 2000 seats in the lower Bullens as this area would be converted to Executive boxes behind the Paddock. Assuming of course the footprint had been expanded ( school is closing soon anyway, Council do own the houses and could assist - indeed Waren Bradley actually said they would be prepared to do this ) there would be the space to build lage corporate facilities onto the back of this stand making it enormous. The capacity would then be 46000 ( 40000 + 4000, -2000, + 4000 ) and you would have both extra seats and capacty to generate money to work on the Gwladys Street End when it could be afforded.
What is really needed is some money to get the ball rolling. Oh for a Board with some vision and just some money to get it started. £15m would do the Park End extension. The cost of Bily and his wages for a couple of years.....
Of course, look at the likes of Aston Villa and Newcastle. They started with far worse stadia than Goodison and have achieved it and there was no billionaire involved there, just Boards of Directors with vision, common sense and a business plan.
22 Posted 26/10/2010 at 12:11:37
23 Posted 26/10/2010 at 12:12:07
Sorry I dont agree with some of your post. Yes a hotel and/or housing is a non starter. For the reasons you raise, location and the fact EFC doesn't own the land.
However GP has a distinct lack of top class coporate hospitality. It only has one restaurant and few function rooms. More corporate boxes are a must. Unrestricted views everywhere in the stadium is also essential. Better and bigger facilities like toilets/ fully stocked kiosks are also fundamental. There are thousands of fans who wont pay £500 for a season ticket when they have to contend with pillars, lengthy half time queues and people pissing into the sinks.
If we can expand the Bullens road and Gwladys street, then we can incorporate a bigger club shop, and an Everton museum.
As its been illustrated by others many times before. We could easily have a top class 50-55,000 seater stadium at GP. If that's temporary then so be it. But it would at least allow us 20 years to find a longer term solution without being handicapped like we are now.
Note there's no hotel or apartments built on the Emirates stadium site or Old Trafford or City of Manc.
24 Posted 26/10/2010 at 13:06:28
25 Posted 26/10/2010 at 13:11:55
26 Posted 26/10/2010 at 13:39:11
A chance missed with only 6000 seats ( half as many as the other end ) and not the 2 tier 10000 seat stand promised with artist's impression in April 1991.
A certain Mr W Kenwright was on a Board of Directors that shamefully only paid £300,000 towards its meagre £2.1m build cost. The rest came from a grant!
If knocking down a stand and totally rebuilding it only took 6 months, then adding another tier would probably take a similar amount of time. A re-work of the Bullens Road is a much bigger job and would probably need 2 close seasons and a season in between, ie 15 monts, to carry out. Much like the Main Stand _ May 1969 to August 1970.
27 Posted 26/10/2010 at 13:11:58
I disagree about the viability of a hotel in Walton on several counts. Firstly, in general terms even in this period of economic downturn, there is still surplus demand for hotel space in Liverpool. Only recently major new hotels have received planning permission in the city-centre with several more in the pipeline, and GP is only 2 miles from town and on a major arterial route (lets face it, there are even hotels in Kirkby). LFC were also including a hotel on their scheme, and Anfield is probably more downbeat and less accessible than Walton. The city has quite a massive football and general tourism influx. New exec boxes could be convertable to rooms, and as elsewhere they could prove a popular pull for potential hotel investors...... especially with another major footy venue nearby. (see the football quarter articles). Several clubs are doing precisely this. This potential was also highlighted by the city council.
Plus I have to say you're judging Walton on its current state. Personally I believe the place has great potential, with good solid victorian housing stock and a fully occupied high street serving a substantial and strong community....... Lots to build on there!?
There are multiple options on developing the land in and around the school, similarly to the way Spurs are advocating with WHL. The space at the Parkend alone can support a substantial multi-storey development too. That could go a long way to funding expansion of the Parkend stand, since unlike retail enabling on other people's land this gives a full, and not partial return. There are schemes on the drawing board to fully utilise both these spaces, and they could be long term development solutions leading to major redevelopment of the stadium, and nothing piecemeal at all..... many of the world's greatest stadia evolved precisely in this way. People shouldn't be blinkered by what's there now, as previously mentioned by Karl many other clubs have had far bigger hills to climb with their stadium development. New roofs alone would release over 36k totally unobstructed seats, that's not a bad starting point!
28 Posted 26/10/2010 at 14:25:38
29 Posted 26/10/2010 at 14:40:49
The Kemlyn Rd stand is older than our current mainstand. Everton's brief to the architects who designed the current stand was simply to put as many seats on the awkward-spaced plot as possible. This they achieved. Many of the obstructed views could be solved by a goal post truss supported roof, removing the 2 front roof supports, and making the whole of the top Balcony and most of the mainstand unobstructed in an instant. An exec balcony could readily be hung beneath the top balcony and the worst affected obstructed views removed from the rear of the mainstand. In otherwords, there are relatively cheap solutions that would result in a completely transformed stand at a fraction of the cost of an equivalent new build. It isn't a particularly attractive structure at present, but it at least has a grand scale, and could offer great views and viewing distances with the modifications mentioned.
30 Posted 26/10/2010 at 15:06:32
31 Posted 26/10/2010 at 15:08:21
32 Posted 26/10/2010 at 14:50:02
As I said, smaller and poorer clubs have and are doing precisely what I (and others) propose. The club was going to have to find £78m minimum for Kirkby since as was shown, very little was going to be forthcoming via the mythical enabling schemes or sale of GP. Starting this process would require a fraction of that amount, and at the end of the day if they were going to find it for Kirkby they can find it for GP.
As far as loss of revenue, it has already been shown that there needn't be any significant loss in capacity throughout the process. Indeed, high-value capacity (corporate/exec-boxes) can be added immediately if necessary...... and it wouldn't be necessary to build whole new stands in a close season, as new tiers can be built above/behind/alongside existing structures to minimise losses during construction phases. This has been achieved at many venues..... at the same time we're currently operating approx 3k below capacity, meaning there is added Leeway there too.
My feelings are that the club needs only a moderate capacity increase in the short term, with a good injection of new corporate facilities and improved concourse areas throughout at the same time. Further additional good quality capacity can follow in later phases (as demand dictates), and this need not affect Moyes' immediate team plans and can be implemented now. There's a lot more in GP that can be preserved and built on..... IMO, there is also great value in doing so. Funnily, the current owners of Liverpool did precisely just that at Fenway.... and that's in the home of the most advanced stadia in the world. (Fenway and Wrigley Fields are US's versions of GP)
33 Posted 26/10/2010 at 15:39:43
A plan existed for the improvement of Goodison which would have taken the capacity to 55,000 I think without any loss of capacity during the construction. This entailed building a two-tier stand behind the Park End stand (14,000) then demolishing the Park End, moving the pitch towards the stand, then progressively upgrading all parts of the ground. I am sure there are details on the KEIOC site. With the selling off of the car park you can now forget that.
I don't see the current board doing anything.
34 Posted 26/10/2010 at 16:08:09
Liverpool & " The New Anfield " as promised by agents H & G, was one ground were matches would be played, this was part of the bid.
If England win the bid, where does that leave the City of Liverpool ? The council will not want to lose out on the tourist revenue, and surely they cannot favour one team over the other for grants etc. for regeneration / rebuilding.
Will the Government step in with a plan for a shared stadium ? It will be very interesting to see if we come off worse again as the poor neighbours. I believe we should already be lobbying at director level for a share of the World Cup cash. After all, we already have plenty of world class stadia in the P.L. so the Government could regenerate Walton & Anfield, without having to spend massive amounts elsewhere.
35 Posted 26/10/2010 at 18:29:48
It is to my utter dismay that I had to attend Euro 96 games at Anfield, after, as a 15 year old watching Brazil, Portugal and a World Cup semi final in 1966 at Gooodison.
As a club we have gone backwards over the last 40 years, there is nothing on the horizon that makes me think we will ever be anyway near to the innovators we were when this club was in its infancy, truly a disgrace.I see Blackburn Rovers are close to completing due diligence, with a take over imminent, what does that tell us about the current state of Everton and the people who are tasked with moving the club forward?
The founders of Everton FC and the legion of Evertonians, now passed, must be turning in their graves.
Just what the fuck has happened to this club??
36 Posted 26/10/2010 at 18:55:48
Sounds a bit similar to the Park End story years later. A nice two tier stand replaced with a meccano model. At least the views are OK in the Park End.
37 Posted 26/10/2010 at 19:35:28
OK Chelsea have one, but they are located in an affluent area of London.
Yes Liverpool might get some foreign fans making a long trip to see them but really who would stay in Anfield or Walton, I'm sorry but they are both in the 4 most deprived areas of Liverpool.
There are plenty of good hotels in the city centre now.
38 Posted 26/10/2010 at 19:53:22
I really hope you are right. I agree with most of what you say about the actual construction works, my only query as with most of these schemes is the funding. I think the only way the club could afford to start these works would be to sell one of our star players or take out a further bank loan.
One thing i would disagree with you is the hotel concept. I really cant see there being sufficient demand for a hotel in Walton. I believe everton have the highest "walk up" percentage of supporters and if so would suugest to me that a hotel by the ground would not generate sufficient demand for a hotel chain to consider it financially viable. Even taking account of fans of Liverpool there are only 38 guaranteed games each season overall for both grounds (19 each) so who fills the hotel the other 327 days of the year? I cant see tourists coming into Liverpool and deciding to book themselves into a hotel in Walton instead of the Crowne Plaza or the hilton etc.
39 Posted 26/10/2010 at 21:00:19
40 Posted 27/10/2010 at 00:22:29
In terms of hotels in general, Liverpool has enjoyed amongst the highest occupancy rates in the uk for years, with several periods when it is almost impossible to get a room... That's why new hotels are getting planning permission all the time and why existing chains are building more.
That isn't to say that would be the only route to investment, the whole lounge/exhibition/conference/commercial possibilities are there also as demonstrated by the current self-funding Park End development. I would hardly say Kirkby is Monte Carlo, but there are a few hotels dotted around it. I can't imagine it has much to do with Kirkby's attractions but Liverpool's.
41 Posted 27/10/2010 at 07:40:37
42 Posted 27/10/2010 at 23:04:15
De Vere Hotel attached to Bolton Fc in the middle of nowhere.
43 Posted 28/10/2010 at 00:09:48
Yes, they also can convert exec boxes at the Reebok to hotel rooms with rooms overlooking the pitch proving quite an attraction I should imagine. A few clubs do this, and several others have hotels..... it really isn't beyond the realms, and certainly not in a major tourism city still with a general shortfall of hotel space, and two major stadia on top of each other..... not to mention the potential of the footy quarter proposals too.
44 Posted 28/10/2010 at 15:53:05
Remember, this is the same council that basically shows Jack-shit enthusiasm to find a potential new home for the oldest footballing club in the City.
45 Posted 28/10/2010 at 16:28:22
They offered Kings Dock to EFC, and that quite frankly craps all over Stanley Park as a piece of real estate and location generally. You can blame the council for all sorts, but offering LFC planning permission for part of an under-utilised and mainly derelict park, in a seriously run down area is hardly comparable to offering EFC a plot on one of the biggest development hotspots in Europe...... with enough enabling packages to make it practically a freeby. The planning department have repeatedly offered the opportunity to discuss development options..... They're still waiting! I'm not sure they can (or should) do much more tbh.
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.