No finder's fee. I'm sure it's been raised before.

I didn't know we were looking for a site for a new ground! Brownfield sites e.g. Bank Hall St have been identified before but that isn't the problem. Until Peel Holdings build us a ground for free it won't happen.

Identifying a potential site is the least of the problems. The real problem is identifying the money to build the thing. This was one of the problems during the DK debate with people coming up with all kinds of alternatives for a site without a thought being given to how a new stadium was going to be paid for.

If a site was the only problem, then we already have one for which planning permission has already been given for a stadium....Stanley Park!

I emailed Keith Wyness about this site before he finished his last pie and shipped out. The site was not offered to us on a plate by Liverpool City Council and we obviously don't have the resources to develop it ourselves or a partner willing to stump up any cash.

I've mentioned it before, years ago. It seems perfect to me, same rough distance from the city centre as Goodison and basically right at the end of the motorway.

As the other guys have said though, a site is the least of the problems.

Let's re-develop Goodison, one stand at a time. We can't afford anything other than that.

'Let's re-develop Goodison, one stand at a time'

Hear hear!

We can't afford £2.5million for Pienaar. Not too sure where the £100mil will come from? Nor the £20 mil to develop a stand at the Old Girl..

I'll go get me shovel.

A progressive development of GP could be self funding by means of the extra capacity, corporate hospitality suites, hotel,restaurant and retail facilities. but then the problem is with such a poor credit rating and already paying much of our operating income to a certain company in the BVI we are not loanworthy.

As regards Edge Lane, I think it was on the list of rejections by Liverpool that Fat Keith claimed was our list.

I can't remember the reasons for rejection though.

Goodison is a fuckin' shed - quite frankly it's a fuckin disgrace...... If there's no room for redevelopment, there's no room - simple as that. Edge Lane is good - at least those whingin' bastards that wanted us to 'stay in the City' wouldn't of had any cause to moan about that. Any-fuckin-where [within reason] will do I reckon........

We HAVE to move out of Goodison otherwise the club will die, because redeveloping Goodison isn't a viable option, regardless of what people might think. Those that opposed the move should be fuckin' ashamed of themselves - these people are either totally deluded or have a vested interest in the club stayin' put, in my opinion.

A new ground would be nicer to be in, have better views and - most importantly - generate more cash for a club that's totally fuckin' skint.

Having said all that, if we've not cash then it looks like we're stayin' put and have to watch the place fall down around us, no matter what we think of the situation....!!!!!

Every year we fall further behind everyone else; every fuckin' year we say the same thing over and over again......

The bottom line is that we dropped a HUGE bollock not getting the Kings Dock then crying about Kirkby.

We should have put a bid in for the Olympic Stadium then moved it up here brick by brick and painted it blue in the process.....!!!!!!!!!

COYB.

Just one very minor problem, to build a ground needs money.

Andy,

I have been going to GP since 1959 and watched the World Cup games there in 1966 when it was one of the best stadiums in England and certainly on a par with Old Trafford.

In those days, Anfield and Chelsea were "sheds" in fact a section of Stamford Bridge was called the Shed.

I gradually made my way around the ground ending up in the Park End after it was redeveloped.

I understand your perspective having revisited the restricted views in Bullens and the Main Stand but no money has been spent on the ground since PJ left.

Having seen proposals and costing for GP redevelopment, I cannot accept for a minute that we need to build a new stadium.

GP can and should be redeveloped over a 10-year period, a bit at a time.

"redeveloping Goodison isn't a viable option, regardless of what people might think"
Oh....fair enough
That's us told
Next viable option right in here, please

I seem to recall that the City Council had some grand vision of the area at Edge Lane being developed into a science and innovation park. There has been development to this effect around the University Campus on brownlow hill and I guess was that the vision would be for this to extend up towards Edge Lane. Without the capital enabling for a new stadium I guess the only other option would be to consider what Fenway appear to have decided with Anfield and that is piecemeal regeneration.

Phil (974) - Andy's "regardless of what people might think" is genius.

In debating terms, it is a close as one can get to putting one's fingers in one's lug-holes and going "WEEeeeOOoooooWEEooooOOOOOOO".

No proof AT ALL just......I'm right because.....I'm me.

To build a ground might take money but remember the board were willing to invest £76million in an inadequate cowshed in Kirkby.

EJ...I like it

I might use that in the next project meeting

"your proposal is not a viable option, regardless of what you no-marks may think"

Then I'll get me coat

Marvellous

Can anyone explain to me how we cope with redeveloping Goodison and cope with the loss of matchday revenue whilst doing so?

I've been reading the plans and vision for this on the KEIOC website but can't see how it works financially.

This isn't a loaded question I just want to understand the viability of it?

On the contrary, “regardless of what people might think”, is tremendously liberating.

We’ve already won twenty-one gold medals, regardless of what people might think. Brett Angel is the greatest striker we have ever had, regardless of what people might think. That pig sandwich floating across the sky is the next US President, regardless of what people might think. Rafa Benitez is anorexic, regardless of what people might think. Toffeeweb is an unreconstructed Marxist tract, no matter what people might think. Messi signed for us yesterday, no matter what people might think.

Go on, have a go, comrades.

Annoying though that Liverpool seem to get whatever help they need from the council. When they were talking about a new stadium they were given that site in the park and seem to have had unlimited extensions on the deadline for when to get started on that. Now that they seem to want to redevelop Anfield the council is coincidentally buying up the houses around Anfield for a demolition project, no doubt facilitating the eventual expansion of Anfield. Edge Lane has been being developed for ages and would seem a good place to incorporate Everton's stadium. Regardless of whether we have the money or not, we seem to get very little help off the council in comparison to our neighbours across the park.

Because (as I understand it) matchday revenue is getting to be a lower share of our total revenue as Sky money increases, the loss of 1/8-1/4 of the revenue for 4 seasons running (to be replaced in season 2 by a reconstructed Gwladys Street End that makes more money and has higher capacity) should not be too much of an issue.

The GFE guys fully costed this out at some point and I never really looked too closely at it. But, even assuming £30M per stand, we are pretty far away from having that kind of money (and the Main Stand would cost tons more than that of course). It would be nice if one day in a few seasons the Park End was the worst part of the old girl.

This is the only realistic path forward other than a white knight buyer who wants to build or some sort of massive public giveaway like the Commonwealth Games (City) or the Olympics (West Ham).

James that might have something to do witha certain Chairman who lied and wasted 2 years of council employees time and lost them almost 200 million in EEC grants that are no longer available.

A lot of people at the council refused to ever do business with Kenwright again.

With Joe Anderson as a match going Evertonian and elected mayor for Liverpool if ever there was a time for influence within local government surely the time is now ?

Didn't KEIOC commission a feasability study into redeveloping Goodison Park, and this showed it could be done without capacity dropping below 30,000 or something like that? Either way, a 2nd tier could be put on the Park End, could probably be done in 8 - 10 months, so if started over the summer, it would be open for business in the New Year.

I estimate that could be done for £10 million max, and would pay for itself within 3 to 5 years. The rest of the ground could be done progressively, at a much lower cost than changing ground in any case.

Think I can feel a KENWRIGHT OUT coming on...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha - I keep tellin' me bird that "I'M ALWAYS RIGHT".........

I am - REGARDLESS OF WHAT PEOPLE MIGHT THINK.

Ta rarrrrrrrrrrrr.....................

One of the problems for a new stadium that even John Henry has hinted at is that merely increasing the capacity isn't enough. A new tier on the Park End (presuming we could fill it) is all well and good in terms of bringing in extra revenue eventually but a few thousand extra seats will not help us catch the Manchester clubs.

The Emirates is the ultimate cash-cow stadium because of its location in London, their ability to fill the ground, and demand for corporate hospitality tickets and boxes. We don't really have any of those three.

You could argue that the extra seats (if filled) could lead to a few extra million a year that Moyes could have, enabling us to get into the Champions League which would then bring more fans and greater media exposure. You could also argue that a slightly larger stadium would attract an investor which would speed up the above process. Both routes are a big 'what if' with a low probability of happening.

Perhaps Goodison Park could be redeveloped very gradually but maybe it's just not worth it. Who wants to be paying Emirates prices for their season ticket? It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation but does success on the pitch follow an increased/new stadium, or is it the other way around?

James #996

I have been saying this for some time - we are comfortable with Goodison and its prices and many would not (could not) pay prices similar to those charged by the clubs we want to compete with - and yet we insist that we should be competing with them.

We are stuck between keeping our current fanbase happy and raising the cash to match top 6 - to be fair we need to at east double our spending on the team so the chances of achieving that are minimal. We are where we are for the forseeable future, Kenwright, board or no board.

Adam 986 - thanks. However, as we operate on a £5m loss each season (or more depending on who you believe) and the realistic outcome of the Sky monies increase is simply wage inflation for player salaries, then the loss of match day revenues will have an impact on the club won't it? Plus, where does the cash come from to pay for the redevelopment stand-by-stand?

The proposals on KEIOC also involve moving the pitch too, not sure how you do this bit by bit either to be honest. Unless we go back to our previous home ground as a temporary measure whilst we do it?!!

James

I think the answer to your question: "Does success follow building a big, better stadium?" – is... it depends!

What do you mean by success? – promotion, sustained improvment, trophies, increased revenue, better attendances?

Sunderland, Boro, Coventry, Derby, Arsenal (?), Cardiff, Leicester, Southampton (now back to where they were just!) don't seem to have really prospered as a result

Clubs who have done better are Reading, Stoke (sort of), Bolton(?), Swansea and Man City who remember don't even own their own ground.

My own preference is to strive for success on the pitch and then investment will follow to improve the team further and facilities. Man City's situation was unique with a ground already built. Perhaps West Ham may benefit in the same way post olympics. I think Goodison is our only option at present. Kirkby would have been awful, the Kings Dock would have been brilliant for the club in terms of marketing and profile.

So the bottom line is -- not enough money to redevelop GP (great point made above about more Sky money = more wage inflation to keep us in the premiership not more money to sock away for stadium) and not enough money to build.

So we are left with hoping for Sheikh whatsit or Paul McCartney or someone with more money than BK to take pity on us.

In the States they get massive public funding to build stadia. Here that only happens when Man City or West Ham are involved.

Pardon my ignorance, but where about in Edge Lane can we fit a stadium. Driving into Liverpool, the top of it is a shopping complex and the bottom is the technology park and over to the right is residential and a row of shops. In addition it is too close to residential areas and if anyone objected we would all be in a box before permission would be granted.

The reason we have never been offered Edge Lane by the council is that they don't own the site. A certain octogenarian called Albert Gubay who resides in the Isle of Man owns the place. He recently gave millions away to the Catholic Church.

Apparently he's a cunt to deal with and would see through the clowns on our board in 5 minutes.

Andy, what's a 'fuckin disgrace' is that there is anybody left who still believes DK was a good idea - now that really is something to be ashamed of.

Andy Callan
Hi chuck
Touche... your "bird" is right

Have a feeling this 'bird' might come with a bycycle repair kit.

Danny #992, the proposal as I remember it was that the work could begin in May and be completed in September for the Park End, it was New Year for the Bullens Rd. side.

David #063, there's a massive tract of land where the bus sheds used to be, and Littlewoods. Check out Google Earth. It's not as residential as Walton and the local businesses could do with a boost.

There is room for a ground by my house but Everton are skint so we will just have to go to the Old Lady for a long time yet...

Bullens Road has not changed since me and me grandad went... but still makes a great noise.

I live just at the top of Edge Lane and there is plenty of room were the old bus depot
was, then you have the old Littlewoods building which could be turned in to a hotel.
In my opinion the ideal spot right on the motorway network, and the area could do with a boost. And I could stroll down from my local and be in my seat
in 5mins...

Regarding the “bird” and the bicycle repair kit …

I recall the story of a stand-up comic a while back who dealt with a heckler as follows:

“You ought to save your breath pal. You’ve got to blow up your girlfriend when you get home”

We definitely need some White Knights to build a stadium for us. Perhaps we should get Sir Terry Leahy on the case. He knows how to make money.

Re Andy Callan 968<

"We HAVE to move out of Goodison otherwise the club will die, because redeveloping Goodison isn't a viable option, regardless of what people might think. Those that opposed the move should be fuckin' ashamed of themselves - these people are either totally deluded or have a vested interest in the club stayin' put, in my opinion"

Where do you begin on this one?

Sweeping statements without even any points to support these ridiculous claims

- why will the club die Andy?

- why isn't redeveloping GP an option?

- why should I be 'fucking ashamed' of myself for objecting to the club being taken out of the city, to a second-rate stadium which would be half-filled each week, which could not host non-football events, could not be reached by car or bus to within a reasonable walking distance and had a train service that would struggle to cope with c2000 people an hour tops?

Oh and just for the record I do not have a vested interest in the club staying put.

I am fucking proud to have fought against DK and will not accept criticism from the likes of Andy Callan who cannot put an argument together to support his ridiculous cliams

For info Andy there was a study completed by Ward McHugh, a firm of architects, which showed how GP could be redeveloped in about 5 phases to varying capacities from 45,000 to 65,000 with minimal impact on seating availability/revenue all within the current footprint.

All that is needed to do this is the will and, of course, the money.

So I suggest you do a little background research before you come out with your condescending, know-it-all arrogant comments and starting pointing your anger at where the fault for our currentpredicament lies - bullshit Billy and his useless board - oh of course not forgetting gullible idiots like you who believe everything the bullshit says

BTWt I still have a copy of the Ward McHugh report if anyone is interested or perhaps Michael or Lyndon would like a copy for the site?

Mike #417 - not heard of the Ward McHugh survey. Any idea how much such a development would cost?
Wolves developed a stand during last season, but the team let them down. Our side looks good enough to risk a stand development without relagation fear, but making hay whilst the sun is shining dosent appear to be in the club's thinking.

Some people seem to be suggesting ideas such as 'adding a second tier to the Park End', suggesting that the requirement for a new or redeveloped stadium is solely about the capacity of the stadium. It's not. If we did manage to find an investor willing to pump hundreds of millions into the club (something I cannot see with the current regieme at the helm) them I think we would be foolish to build a stadium with a capacity over about 45,000.

The fact is, we currently don't have the pulling power or influence of the Redshite who can attract supporters from Norway etc. We have struggled badly in recent seasons to achieve an average attendance of about 30-35,000, that is saddening. I'm proud to say that almost 100% of our support is from Merseyside, Cheshire etc. and this is something that Liverpool can't boast, but we cannot regularly fill a 45k capacity stadium with our regular match-going support.

This, in my opinion is why I will always oppose the 'ground-share' idea: can you imagine the embarrassment of seeing 'our' ground filled to capacity with Europeans every fortnight, then half-full when Everton play at home? How can you hope to attract investors/supporters when you put yourselves in the spotlight every week as the second-fiddle side in terms of attendance?

Can anyone remember what the capacity of DK was supposed to be?

Peter, I seem to remember it being 55,000 which I think would be about right.

I completely agree about the groundshare thing, it makes sense on so many levels but the countless rows of empty seats at our home games would make it really embarrassing.

A link to the Ward McHugh study.

Mark

There were various options as I mentioned but for a 50,000 capacity I think they were looking in the region of c£50m but that was nearly 10 years or so back

I have been saying for ages that we should develop Goodison one stand at a time, I didnt realise someone had actually come up with, what appears to be a very viable plan bloody years ago !
Thanks for the link MK.

Michael - thanks for the link - was it really 1998 - wow I am getting old!!!

Peter,
the addition of a second tier at the Park end would embrace Corporate suites and increase capacity by 8500.

A number of games which we sell out to capacity (barring restricted views) would then facilitate estra income and minimum disruption as I understan it can be done over the close season.

I agree it is logical to say our average attendance these days is around 35000 but all the experts suggest an increase in capacity and facilities will generate more than the cost of servicing the loan and capital repayments.

The benefits and methodology of redeveloping Goodison Park have been done to death but in precis

a lot of the works could be undertaken during the close season to reduce the impact of reduced capacity

the works can be undertaken on a stand by stand basis to meet realistic forecast capacity demand - tie that to a marketing strategy of selling the new seats in advance as replacements of former obstructed views, etc this would also add weight to the forecasting of demand

lesser works which don't increase capacity such as updating facilities - catering and hospitality can be made between capacity increase windows

above all this isn't a big bang mega bucks up front expansion which is far more achievable but without a will amongst the freeloading carpet bagger board members its highly unlikely to ever happen.

above all this isn't a big bang mega bucks up front expansion which is far more achievable but without a will amongst the freeloading carpet bagger board members its highly unlikely to ever happen.

Gavin - excellently summed up

Peter #422, the capacity of DK that the Club stated was not going to be the actual capacity which would have been restricted due to the lack of a viable transport plan to facilitate movement of the crowds to and from the stadium. The actual capacity would have been restricted to 42,000.

Well put, Gavin,
I'm not savvy with the financial problems in building of a stadium but I do know a good pitch when I hear one and there's not a hope in this century that we'll be going to an all new home venue in a prime location, so I say keep hold of what we've got and re-develop bit by bit.

Saying that, as outlined by Gavin, it's a no hoper with the board/bored of EFC and grabbing all they can without obviously breaking the percieved 'mid-table EFC ethos', they'll keep on doing it, and so it becomes an oxymoron.

The best we can hope for is a Champions League start to the season and to then qualify, get the money, then take it from there.

So, beginning of the season (18 August 2012) get right on their backs and demand a good start – after all, it's all we're good for, well speaking for myself anyway.

Jay #528,

Where is the logic in increasing the capacity of our most modern stand while the rest of the ground continues to fall well behind what is expected of football stadia today? I do not think it would increase our attendances, I just think existing match-going fans may migrate to the Park End for a better matchday experience.

Whatever happens, 'if/when' that elusive sugar daddy comes along, we will need to relocate and build a new ground. I don't think it is wise to waste money, that's the way I see it, on having one decent stand and even more empty seats around other areas of the ground.

As Eric 552# suggests, the capacity of DK would have been about 42k. This, for me, shows that a bit of common sense had been employed by the powers that be when considering the viability of DK or other projects. When we do move, I would be very happy to see us move into a clone of the DK stadium, just within the city.

To get back to the point of the article, the redevelopment of Edge Lane is to make the entrance to Liverpool more attractive/impressive to tourists/visitors. What better way to do that by having the home of one of the biggest names in British football to drive past? I think the club, if they have not already, would be daft not to look at Edge Lane more closely and also Otterspool??

^Peter, the logic in developing the Park End is that there is space behind it to be able to work in easily and to expand into. And it's not just about increased capacity for matchgoers, you also have to take into account off field revenue from executive boxes, conference facilities, dining experiences (weddings / parties) etc.

Eric, the club tried (and failed) to make use of that space with the plans for the new building on the footprint of the old Marquee. However, I think that this, rather than redevelopment of the Park End stand, is a more viable avenue to increase off field revenue.

As I understand it, the plans for the new building would cost almost nothing to the club and yet we would benefit greatly from the revenue created by it. God knows what went wrong with that seemingly flawless plan?!

As I said previously, it is too expensive a job to redevelop the PE stand just for fans to migrate there from other areas of the ground. I don't think it would increase attendances, or lounge memberships.

Peter,
I am not advocating that we ONLY develop the Park end but that would be low cost way of initially increasing revenues with minmum disruption.

This would then facilitate the development of the rest of the ground over a longer period on a more manageable spread of investment.

AS our friends aross the Road have found there are very few people who could afford to build even a DK replica since all forms of grants are now virtually gone.

So I do think it is a pipedream to even consider a new stadium.

Look at Old Trafford which was on a par with Goodison until the Sky and Champions league monies started to flow into their coffers and even then they did it piecemeal.

Abramovic and Levy are also baulking at the realities of building a new stadium.

Let me just ask you if it was your money would you buy GP for 15 million or spend 150 million on DK.

Jay,

It will be interesting to see if what you say is viable. Had they not been relegated last season, I think Everton might have been watching proceedings at Molyneux quite closely. I think the model they seem to have employed is virtually the same as what you suggest, unless they intend to stop at the redevelopment of just one stand?

To answer your question, of course the cheaper option is more attractive but we can't even afford that with/without grants. That's why I can't understand how the Marquee replacement idea seems to have passed us by without as much as a decent explanation fro the club. We are waiting (im)patiently for some Billionaire out there to spot something in us worth buying, then we can move forward.

Fully agree with your point that we need to find a viable and affordable option to increase off-field revenue streams. The only issue is that we, as a fan base, don't know what affordable is?

Jay #603, I remember what OT was like, and I'm sure there are others on here who remember from further back. They have done a great job, but if I recall, they also had no constraints with the land around the stadium, as in they owned or could easily get it? (I think Celtic Park was the same).

I'd be interested what the total cost was, but from memory, the last part was to fill-in 2 corners and that came in at £45m for a 7.5k increase in capacity (one needs to bear in mind that this is quite a high cost as it was a specific design to put a 2nd tier on the NE and NW corners). Ironically, Utd still want to develop the South Stand which, because of the railway and land take would cost an estimated £100m for a further 20,000 seats. (And yet I do remember us beating them in the first year of the Premier League, on a Tuesday night, in front of around 16,000. How times change...)

I know there have been outline designs for what could be achieved on the current footprint, but I am sure it wouldn't be that straightforward, what with the planning regulations and issues of blighting (even more!) properties in the vicinity.

We are in catch 22 scenario, we need a new owner to bring in investment, but that won't happen until we have a new ground/ redevloped GP, we have no money to do either.

As horrible as it is, that is our current situation and do not see anything changing any time soon, that is unless we become champions league regulars, and again, without serious investment in players it really is doubtful.

The answers to those questions is what we need to put us back on the map. I wish I knew them.

Matt #606,
Old Traffords expansion was expensive because of the complexity and height of the construction..... There was a massive volume of material construction. Other comparisons could also be used to give a more balanced view. Newcastle added 20k new seats (net 16k) for £42m to take St James' from 36k capacity upto 52k including many new boxes and lounges. Similarly, Sunderland added 7k new seats in a single new tier for £7m. A similar wrap-around tier could greatly increase GP's capacity, and increase concourse areas several-fold and need not be excessively expensive in relative or real terms.

The problem we have is that while there are approx 4k obstructed views at GP(obstruction of one or more goals), there are something like 3 times that many with obstructions of other parts of the pitch. Meaning that there is only really approx 28k fully unobstructed views, and regular fans know this. They also know they can watch all games free in the alehouse or on their PC's, so the obstructed views become increasingly unsaleable. Re-roofing of the three older stands would eradicate all upper tier obstructed views, greatly decreasing the overall number...... again this would be significantly cheaper than building whole new stands. The lower Bullens could be significantly improved by re-profiling as was achieved with the lower gwladys St. This would greatly decrease the obstructions as the new terrace stand would only extend to the second row of columns. with new concourse areas arranged at the rear. While people regularly moan about the poor views down there, they often omit to mention the glorious views afforded upstairs, which are not matched anywhere in Old Trafford or the Emirates in terms of viewing distances and viewing aspect. A new tier behind the existing upper tier would add to these great views and improve atmosphere while preserving the intimacy that helps create the bearpit. Conversely, a whole new Bullens Rd stand offers other opportunities. whichever route, Redevelopment can be much cheaper as it doesn't require 4 new stands.

Tom #653, my main concern about GP is the footprint. As you know, the requirements for a stadium in the EPL are many. Aside from the operational needs of the players - with the squad system GP's dressing rooms are lacking, there's the media (50 seats now just for foreign print journalists!); then there's the command and control for police, medical and stewarding.

We know that we have insufficient corporate boxes, and I know the club have tried to be creative with the additional lounge options to try to differentiate the product for those with a bit more to spend.

Whether it's redevelopment or, however it's enabled, a new build, the focus has to be on maximising primary, secondary, and even tertiary revenue. Many fans will watch us wherever we play, but if we are to be competitive long term, we need the stadium to be more of a cash generator.

People seizing the comments of JW Henry on their predicament are missing the point. They are operating in a different sphere to us at the moment, but right now, an Anfield equivalent is still streets ahead of what Goodison has to offer.

Matt....
The footprint can be expanded on the Bullens side, as there are only 2 streets abutting it, and a school that might be relocating/rebuilding in anycase. The player facilities on the Goodison Rd side can also be expanded by the relocation of office/admin space into the expanded Park end or Bullens.

I don't believe Anfield is streets ahead tbh. It has less elevated views than GP, and the concourse areas are just as congested. It has a slightly bigger capacity and less obstructions, but it is no San Siro. New roofs, more boxes and a few thousand more seats would see us more than match Anfield....

Tom
it's about time the professionals came on board.

Thank you for your valuable input even though it seems so repetitive because so many of our fans have an opinion without full grasp of the facts.

Didnt you and Trevor present a potential development scheme to Kenwright that was totally disregarded?