Everton announce new stadium plans

The reason Man CityÂ’s owners never took us over was solely down to the stadium. We deserve a new stadium of 50-thousand plus which we can fill. ItÂ’s the only thing that had been holding us back. COYB!

Any idea what the stadium will be called?

Anthony (3), my guess is that naming rights will be a key part of the funding for the development of the stadium so, officially at least, it might not have a name beyond "Walton Hall Park".

A promising development indeed.

While this is not likely to be a great financial boon for the club, it stands to provide significantly more money than what Goodison does. Considering that Everton aren't willing to spend their own money, this is probably the best solution that could have happened. It also opens Everton up for more investment/buyout opportunities in the future.

From the Walton Hall Park Project website under "who is going to pay for this?"

Sounds like we would be dipping into our own pockets to some extent.

The city centre, the waterfront, are the sort of locations we need to concentrate on. Anything else is second-best, a place where dear old Bill seems hell bent on dragging us too.

The "when and how", now that’s a little bit more difficult to get a handle on. Of the two, the "how", is the one that will hold things up. This is, after all, Everton.

BK couldn't resist that old cliché could he.

"Stadium debate" = vicious internecine war.

"Opportunity for socially responsible regeneration" = Quick buck.

"ToffeeWeb debate on new stadium" = hysterical accusations & (yet another) opportunity for juvenile put downs.

"Full Supporter Involvement at Every Stage" = Keep buying those season tickets and we might let you choose the colour of the toilet paper.

Personally though, I feel really exited about this news! Walton Hall Park as I remember it as a kid is a great location providing the regeneration program takes into account the needs of the community and really does present work for local people!

But as I said, it's pointless imagining that £Xm will get you this, that and the other. It depends on any subsidies that can be utilised, grants, how the supply chain is managed / owned etc. Even allowing for inflation, Kings Waterfront was 㿊m, rising to 㿭m. Kirkby was a mid-range stadium for 㿾m. One included enabling residential development and secondary revenue streams for events, the other had a Tesco supermarket next to it.

LetÂ’s be fair, itÂ’s more or less on the doorstep and IÂ’m sure the club have thoroughly researched the travel links. ItÂ’s the Guardian statement thatÂ’s got me worried. WhoÂ’s going to make up the shortfall? HavenÂ’t we been here before?

When Goodison is rocking, there is nowhere else like it. The last thing we want is some Ikea stadium (Walkers, Reebok, Pride Park etc) with no character or atmosphere. Something like the huge single tier home end at Dortmund would be a great start, albeit they have standing there.

Will this project be cast in stone and ring-fenced from the likelihood of policy change etc.

I hope so!

Also due in part to the suspicion that this proposal is less about the future of Everton FC and more about a financially rewarding exit strategy for the Board.

Personally I don't want to support a club that shows no corporate responsibility. Everton in the Community does great work and this plan will continue this ethos of being a club that is part of the city and has a new stadium full of local people rather than Norwegians! Just make stands close to the pitch. That is what people go to watch.

I hope you're not under the illusion that Everton can raise anything like the money Arsenal could from selling Highbury as real estate? Property in Highbury would comfortably be more than ten times the price in L4. Even during a downturn.

I suspect the council was forced to announce this because they had to submit their regeneration strategy to some government department or other, and, more likely, they are just approving the Anfield expansion. This is just to keep us quiet and head off any fans' unrest at lack of progress... Hope I am wrong.

Maybe we should have bought the houses one by one in the streets around Goodison over the last 25 years, left them boarded up for squatters, rats and drug addicts, and eventually forced the other residents out so we could buy the whole street. Then redevelop the ground. That sort of immoral approach seems to have worked big time for LFC with no bad consequences or PR.

To paraphrase the Great Carpetbagger himself, "You don't need to spend 𧶀m for a 𧶀m stadium!"

(And seriously, I think suggesting prices in Islington would be more than ten times the price of L4 is an underestimate!)

No plans, no funding in place, no investor, just a handshake/guarantee that we can have the site. Don't hold your breath, this is BB and his cronies and they couldn't deliver a letter to their next door neighbour.

Before you all jump on me, remember what has gone before. I won't believe a word of it until I see a giant Everton crest on a stadium in the park...

They haven't announced new "Stadium plans", they have announced that they may have a "possible" site for a new stadium if they can cobble together the funding and sponsorship.

If this happens, we could have a Kings Dock pen. They could all sit in there and continue bleating on about their lost love whilst the rest of us watch the club and part of the city take huge steps forward.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=leicester%20tigers%20new%20stadium

Here's hoping that we both live long enough to see us back at the top. But the realist in me thinks not.

But I also want Liverpool to get relegated and go bankrupt, win the lottery, retire early and spend the rest of my days fishing...

If this comes to fruition, I will carry the hod for fuck all on my days off mate.

We can all disagree about it not being on the waterfront etc but that ship has sailed. The plans sound okay and Walton Hall Park is not only the best but probably the only option outside of us playing miles away at this stage.

There will be fans stuck in the past with regards naming rights etc but at some level the club has to be run like a business. Main road or The Etihad stadium?? No difference whatso ever apart from the latterÂ’s name brings in multi- millions!!

Great news either way and well done, EFC. Ask any Leeds fan what their preference would be? In our position or being a big club, playing in a once famous old stadium in the lower leagues?? Time to move on, everybody.

I've heard over the years the place has gone down the pan so the scheme, if it comes off, sounds win win all round. As ever, the devil will be in the detail.

Having said that, I hope that graphic in the Express is wrong – it looks like a drunken architect designed something that's a cross between a stadium and a skateboard park.

I hope we're third time lucky... The regeneration side of it sounds a lot more positive than the soulless retail park that would have been Destination Kirby. 𧶀m sounds a lot of money but the naming rights in an area of genuine community regeneration would surely be a big pull for companies wanting branding, especially if we're still competing near the top of the league.

I'm not going to pretend to be some amateur accountant and know the ins or outs of the financial side, but haven't Man Utd just agreed to sign the most lucrative sponsorship deal ever with Adidas for 㿷m a season?! Unfortunately while we can only dream of such a deal. I've just highlighted it because, if Adidas are willing to pay that for just one season, the same amount surely wouldn't seem so ridiculous for "naming rights" on a stadium (which is long-term branding) in the regeneration project described for a team that isn't doing too bad on the field either.

The walk up to the match. Tight streets, shouts and chants, police horses, scarf stalls, and St Domingo's.

The first view as you step out and see the pitch. The hairs on your neck as Z-Cars comes on. And the ROAR. Oh the roar!

The way that when the match is over we just leave in every direction, fuck the traffic!

I will miss her so much if we do leave. Even though I know that it has to happen for the good of our club. But that does not mean I will be happy about it.

Oh, and one more thing... I'll believe it when I see it.

Looks like the council are trying their best to help us. Let's hope Kenwright ("We can't find the money") and local idiots ("Not on my doorstep"), don't spoil it for us again!

A spanking new 50,000+ stadium should lead to some foreign investment from Russian or Middle/Far East, get some new sponsors in prepared to cough up real money and things could then be looking up!

I imagine their plan is to flog the club with this scheme in place, or to see it thorough themselves, then sell the club as quickly as possible. This move is purely down to maximising share value (fair enough) but there are question marks as to what sort of stadium they will leave behind, when profit is their only motivation.

Also, please remember, a project such as this is way, way, beyond anything Bill could deliver, so I would be careful not to mention him as the sole driver behind a move such as this. It was Green & Earl who sacked Wyness, they play a massive role at the club when it comes down to major financial decisions.

The picture on the Express website doesn't look that impressive, although I doubt it is the actual concept. We all know a stadium where the fans are close to the action is best. I like the idea of steep sided stadiums to reflect the noise inwards, and not an open design with poor acoustics.

Like everyone one though the waterfront would be brilliant. But Peel Holdings apparently have a big project for the area, post Panamax facilities with a commercial development. Still don't understand why we don't try to partner with them.

Look how constrained Arsenal have been in the transfer market over the last decade. If our ability to spend on transfers was significantly affected – and I'm not saying that it will be – the worst-case scenario is that this could starve the club of success on the field and seriously affect our ability to fill the new stadium.

I don't like to put a downer on what is an exciting announcement, but the way in which the money is eventually to be raised will be critical.

My first thought is that I can't help but think that the stadium needs to be closer to the City Centre to tap into the corporate market for events and seminars etc.

Platini's financial fair play idea has also failed.

My hope (and again this is not fact) is that by securing the site it opens up the opportunity for a buy out. If you're going to invest heavily, then the opportunity to do so when you can make a massive stamp by helping with what will be the club's home for the rest of the century seems like a pretty good way of securing some kind of immortality.

I'm sure City's owners may have made some significant design changes during the design phase had they been at the helm back then.

Given the mess ups previously, I hope that the club is sold before this gets too far doqn the line. I'm sure Bill will be accommodated in some way, but he and the other shareholders have to understand that a buy out is a buy out -another investor to get locked in for 10 years or so won't help move us on and we'll keep swimming in circles financially and almost certainly with our acheivments.

● Wenger always had money to spend (as Chad suggests in #87). At that particular moment in time, they had 𧴿M cash at hand.

● They explained the role of the Highbury Apartments development in the funding.

● The naming rights deal was 𧵎M over 10 years, which they were delighted with at the time, but couldn't wait for it to expire as the market had moved on rapidly. (We tangentially discussed our 10 year 㿌M Kitbag deal and they thought we were wankers for signing that.)

● Also, I can't remember everything, but I think that 𧵎M was somehow tied to shirt sponsorship - don't think it was full amount though. But basically, after 3-4 years that deal looked bad.

● Also I think they had to pay towards capacity improvements on the tube at a couple of stations, and some road works, but they were nowhere near the actual costs as TfL wanted the upgrades doing anyway.

Can't remember if there was anything else as we may even have moved on to talk about the game that night.

Mr Anderson reckons we will be in by 2018, first timeline I have seen, and letters posted to residents today.

Back in April I think it was, Everton FC mentioned the possibility of one site in particular and said that it would require funding from elsewhere. LCC made a statement and indicated that it wouldn't be in a position to fund a stadium.

In the latest statement the mayor of Liverpool mentions "Everton's investment" and so I'm wondering are the club any further on?

Fair enough, they've found a place that they'd like to have their new stadium but there's not Tesco this time so does have any idea how they think they might fund it?

Or would you rather they kept fans in the loop with what plans they had? At least they are trying to take us forward, yes on a shoe string, but we are moving forward on and off the pitch.

Scott (#11), "The fact that they are now comfortable enough to announce it means quite a lot. That likely means that the major roadblocks have been bypassed and everything is in place." — Maybe the funds have even been ring-fenced like when they announced King’s Dock?

Andy (#30), "I’m sure the club have thoroughly researched the travel links." — I wouldn’t be so sure, look at Desperation Kirkby. I wonder if WHP will be as accessible by bicycle as DK?

Just look at the first sentence "Everton FC and Liverpool City Council have announced their intention to investigate a regeneration initiative." — How vague is that? It’s just like the transfer rumours... don’t get excited until you see it with your own eyes.

If the team does not play well, then the fans will desert! This has been the case throughout every clubÂ’s history. I have been in Goodison with 78,000 and also 72,000 gates back in the Â’60s. All these fans without segregation too!

Incidentally, I also remember a league match with about 13,000 in the old Second Division when we were relegated. Fans are as fickle as females :0)

No plans
No timetable
No money
No fucking chance

Plus think it’s scandalous that any club be allowed to build on parks and the likes – they’re a community asset.

With the expansion of the EU in Â’05, a lot of the other funding pots are flowing towards the new members whose relative income is much lower.

ERDF funding is split across 3 areas ~ one of which is to do with GDP compared to European average. From memory, the only 2 parts of the UK that now qualify are the Isles of Scilly and some part of Cornwall (all these new members lowered the average GDP for Europe). The other 2 funding rationale are very specific, and there would need to be a lot of regeneration benefits to qualify, so excuse me for being sceptical.

Like everything, we got stagnant at the wrong time. We missed out on KD when it was awash with 3rd party cash (not even investor money). Now weÂ’ve missed out on a lot of the benefit of having that billionaire owner as FFP effectively stops us going on a City-esque spree.

Might as well stick with Blue Bill, eh?

Take a look at the availability for the Wolfsberg game. WeÂ’ll be lucky if we have 25k in Goodison on Thursday for our first European game in 4/5 years. Think 50k is right for now, just make sure the stadium has the foundations that allows us to expand if needed.

Given that average attendances in 84-85 & 85-86 were around the 32,000 mark in a 52,000 capacity ground, I wonder about that.

Trevor, I, too, have been at Goodison with the 74,800+ versus Burnley and 72,000+ against the RS etc in the early 1960s; however, I think that we have only exceeded 70,000 on a handful of occasions and we have only averaged over 50,000 once in our history. We even dropped to an average of 19,000 in 83-84 and 92-93 and in the 20,000s in eleven seasons since the 1970s. We also attracted 13,000 fans one week in 83-84, the season when we finished 7th, the year before we won the League, so no-one can say it was because we were a crap side. We have NEVER enjoyed massive gates on a regular week-in, week-out basis. I would love things to be different but I still think we will struggle to fill a 50k stadium every week.

Screw all this, "weÂ’ll struggle to fill" nonsense.

We probably will, but if we build a crappy 50k stadium and then we start battering the league... what happens when 50k ainÂ’t enough?

"Build for the future," Is what I say, letÂ’s have some ambition. No more of this Â’small clubÂ’ attitude.

COYB!

You are also correct in stating that we didnÂ’t drop below 40k once in the League at home the season, but that in one way proves the point. Our other great era in the 1980s was watched by average gates in the low 30k down to high 20k.

I know that life was different then and hooligan elements may have kept fans away, but the only thing that will give us any chance of big crowds every week and waiting lists for season tickets is continued success on the field.

Imagine the 25 Wigan fans being able to pick from 1 of 7,000 seats?

"Of course, thereÂ’s an enormous amount of work to do [which] involves fixing a huge financial jigsaw, but we are certain itÂ’s an opportunity we should pursue with great commitment, endeavour and ambition."

That makes it all sound a long long way off (and dare I say a bit woolly and romantic... what? From our Bill, never!)

But IÂ’m optimistic at hearing something positive about the proposed ground move after 20 years of divisive and pie-in-the-sky options.

I know standing facilities are pretty successful in the Bundesliga, ItÂ’d also be a way to keep ticket pricing competitive. Of course IÂ’m not harking back to the days when grounds were nearly all standing... I just think it might be good to have stadium where thereÂ’s a section for the home supporters which would be all standing.

That was more to do with the prevailing economic climate, the hooliganism and the general view of football in the Â’80s. Even Liverpool averaged 32,000 in a season (1983-84) in which they won three trophies, including the European Cup.

Another small item on the website describes education facilities, does this also infer the Everton academy school which has created a lot of debate in itself.

Regeneration is always a socially responsible stance so canÂ’t quibble over that but worry given the track record of our millionaire board to be tighter than a duckÂ’s chuff as to where the money is coming from, plus cutting corners and costs will only mean cheap and nasty.

If, as has been stated, the club are prepared to listen to fansÂ’ views on certain aspects of the stadium design and anything else connected to making this special for us, then I hope we all get involved with our suggestions.

Whatever theyÂ’ll be doing, itÂ’s a nice round figure... like the 1,000 who were going to be cycling to games at The Kirkby Tesco-Bowl.

Please donÂ’t replace the historic stadium that is Goodison Park with something like the pile of crap they were planning for Kikby. That didnÂ’t even have a Â’Home endÂ’ with all four stands cut in half by executive boxes.

Get the fans close to the pitch like at Chelsea. If you have to close off the front two rows for European matches, then so be it. If you look carefully at Goodison you will see the Street End is much closer to the pitch than the Park End because the Club followed some sort of UEFA byelaw in 1994. Now think which end sucks the goals in and intimidates the opposition!

55,000 capacity minimum, fans close to pitch, multi-tiered stands, corners filled in, crosses on stand balconies, big single tier Home End with a small tier above, RupertÂ’s Towers in all 4 corners outside etc, etc. There is no club with a better history to embody in a new stadium than ours. LetÂ’s hope we get some sort of say in it this time.

The only reason that GP doesnÂ’t sell out more often is the obscene number of restricted views. There were several times last season when I considered grabbing a ticket but then changed my mind when I saw the quality of seats available. I imagine IÂ’m not the only one.

A 55,000-seater version of the Signal Iduna would do me fine. With a Blue Wall. The Shite can stick their famous Kop up their ring.

I have seen cycle racks at a Premier League stadium though. At Reading, in sunny Berkshire, a far cry from Merseyside, and even then none of them were being used!

LetÂ’s start a campaign for that design now. BK could save all the design fees by borrowing the German plans. Just make the seats blue, put a great big RupertÂ’s Tower outside and some crosses on the balcony walls and its job done.

What are you waiting for, Bill?

IÂ’ll believe it when the diggers go in!

Cycle to WHP could happen for some, there is a trail from Halewood to Aintree.

I love Goodison, some of the best (and worst) moments of my life over the past 50 years have taken place there. But hell, it is very, very tired. Despite some extremely lucid comments above about re-building, I suspect a new stadium may be the only answer.

If a new stadium can be funded, I would far sooner it was done as part of a visionary re-development of a community rather than an adjunct to a faceless retail park.

Whilst I am cynical about some of those behind the scenes at Everton, I have a degree of faith in the work of EitC, and a true social development at Walton Hall Park could be a world leader for sports stadia. So, whilst there are many, many ifs and buts, and the chances of a radical success are probably slim, I see this proposal as worthy of support in principle.

The first 㿊M+ went towards wages, contract extensions, a bit towards the kitty, repairs and upgrades on Goodison etc, etc.

You can bet that large portions of the next two instalments will go towards this venture from the club. That will be our part of the bargain, to go in with the councilÂ’s share and then bits from sponsors and whatever else.

I think the club are doing the right thing. This increased TV money is something that weÂ’ve not had before, and extra 㿊M a season at least so why not use it towards a stadium?!

No-one on our board will solely put in for a new stadium, so we may as well use the new TV money, money that has not ever been there before!

What gives me confidence that this venture will get off the ground, is that the council are on board and very vocal in wanting to help make it happen and I think finally, we will get our new home.

We all love Goodison but we all know we need to move to help us generate the necessary finances through the ability to get more sponsors involved at the new stadium and with the club; this really could be the making of us getting back amongst the big boys?!.

What I donÂ’t have faith in is BK, firstly being truthful and secondly trying hard to get this right. The other stumbling block will be the short-sighted local people. This will be really good for the area and the city as a whole.

Fingers crossed this can happen...

Many of us would like to share SiÂ’s enthusiasm, but will understand and sympathise with TomÂ’s reservations, This boardÂ’s attempt to lead us all up the garden path with claims of the "Deal Of The Century" are still fresh in the memory.

KTÂ’s post (19) serves as a timely reminder that not everyone has our best interests at heart.

One step at a time for me. ItÂ’ll be interesting to see If the club intends to put this to the vote once the plans are finalised.

I understand the wariness of many of us considering what has happened before – and fully accept that it should not just be a case of committing to the first available opportunity – but not the unremitting negativity of those who are completely dismissing this project before we have seen any details.

Personally IÂ’m not against the project, only the mountebanks, charlatans and sharps who will be presiding over it.

The only thing thatÂ’s bugging me is why Stanley Park is never mentioned as a possibility for us. Obviously a lot of spadework (pun intended) has already been carried out as well as feasibility studies. Seeing as our beloved enemy no longer has need of it, why canÂ’t we jump in?

Sorry but we donÂ’t know any such thing.

Sure the club have said many times that Goodison isn’t an option, but to my knowledge they’ve never gone into any detail as to why. (Genuine question – anyone remember any detailed statement ever?)

IÂ’m not 100% against a move to WHP but any claims right now (when we know virtually nothing) are pure wishful thinking and mean nothing.

Imo Â’this really could be the making of usÂ’ smacks of someone trying to sell something and for the sake of balance, at this stage, it needs saying that if it could be the making of us, it could also be the ruin of us (no doubt Boro, Coventry and Bolton were sold similar dreams).

My advice to Evertonians would be keep your eye on the ball... at all times.

As George W Bush (almost) said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.Â’ (Not sure what Â’fool me 37 timesÂ’ was...)

Joe Anderson:
He said no timetable for the building of the stadium was in place, but that after consulting with the local community, fan groups and project partners, a planning application "could be made within 12 months".

Dame Flora:
He said that "like all Evertonians, I love Goodison Park and have done since the day I first set foot in the BoyÂ’s Pen".

Then I felt like I did that Christmas when I asked Santa for a pair of Adidas and excitedly tore the wrapper off.......... a pair of "TimmoÂ’s Shit Stoppers".

Building contractors will most likely not be from North Liverpool. Staff would be transferred from Goodison to run the club and the matchday side of things. Retail and leisure add-ons would bring some employment opportunities, but then who works on their own doorstep these days?

Questions were bound to be asked of our board once the other lot started their redevelopment, but our mob would have seen this coming miles off.

Call them all you want, but they can spin a tale with the very best out there, and this will certainly placate the fanbase for a good few years. Could be brilliant if you think about it. They know it wonÂ’t cost them a penny, but they look as if they are moving heaven and earth to build a new ground. Every enquiry or objection could see this scheme dragging on for years, but it could give the board a free pass as far as the stadium debate goes. Hats off.

ItÂ’s an issue that gets trotted out about every two years to keep the troops from getting restless about the other lot moving even further ahead of us.

Wake me up in 2016!

They said they had identified a site two years ago – is this news really offering any progress other than naming Walton Hall Park publicly?

Maybe we are being too cynical – but could anyone really blame us?

IÂ’m all for the project, but I have a feeling if it happens, it will be years before we see an end product, how long is anybodyÂ’s guess.

What I donÂ’t want to see is a new shiny stadium + a team fighting to stay in the Prem.

I note all your comments, and feel they are very valid, on all fronts really, but just to lighten the tone a bit, if you donÂ’t mind me quoting you here!

"What I donÂ’t want to see is a new shiny stadium + a team fighting to stay in the Prem."

What if the team who were fighting to stay in the Prem, were our friendly, and beloved neighbours, across the Park?

Having watched their game tonight, against relatively unknown opposition, I couldnÂ’t help rooting for the Bulgarian side (I donÂ’t know why!) who I thought were extremely unlucky with some of the decisions against them. Taking into consideration the amount of money they have spent (RS) I do not think Liverpool looked anything but a very ordinary side at home! So my hypothetical scenario may not be that far removed from reality.

We will still be in Goodison in 20 years.

What would be really helpful is a proper independent analysis of what can be done at Goodison. As a non-expert it is frustrating not knowing the basic credibility of the re-development option.

But in my view Goodison is no longer fit for purpose and something needs to be done. Not to catapult us into the big time (a new stadium will not be enough to achieve that). But for us to catch up with middleweight clubs that have already developed new stadia (or substantively re-developed their stadiums).

I see this announcement as a positive first step, but like all on here I am not holding my breath just yet.

To those bemoaning the negativity, I think there needs to be an understanding that we’ve been here before, not once, but twice, with this board. The only thing that has changed is revenue – they won’t be investing any more than they already have.

I don’t expect there to be a vote. Desperation Kirkby was only put to the vote to get a mandate from the fans for a move that was controversial, both in its location and in the actual execution – with Tesco’s. The promotional material produced was questionable in its integrity, and no airtime was given to those who would argue against the move – Note: they were not arguing for staying at Goodison.

I believe the board believed that had they got a planning consent for DK a buyer would have emerged quickly, and they would never have actually been required to identify the 㿾m funding. Unless they already had one lined up I think that wouldÂ’ve been difficult.

If this time they are actually going to see the project through, then as long as TV revenues hold constant or continue to increase, then they could easily generate a surplus of 㿊m+ per annum to devote to this (IÂ’ve said up the thread why I think EU funding will be minimal).

If you allow a 5 year time line to get this up and running (and recent transfer history suggests weÂ’ve already made a start in accumulating the funds), then we can spend the next 5 years with a net negative transfer spend, or sell a Barkley or Coleman when the squad needs rejuvenating, and itÂ’s doable.

Doable, until they fuck it up again.

At least a realistic option has been put on the table. They could have decided to go for a pie-in-the-sky idea, such as a stadium with training facilities linked to a hotel.

The council has helped Everton as much as they can. It is now down to BK to show his hand. We donÂ’t seem to spend on transfers so the money must go somewhere... Now is the time for the chairman to prove himself

That reminds me of an episode of Corrie, when Bet Lynch went to an Indian restaurant and kicked off coz theyÂ’d got her order wrong.

"Look cock, youÂ’ve given me the chicken tikka and the keema nan but whereÂ’s thrice!?"

IthangYEW!

As the board was pushing the Kirkby option at the time, then Elstone may have been somewhat "selective" in his facts and figures!

Each club has enclosed huge facilities within their large footprints, not just spectator seats adding comfort and value. Hopefully we will do the same at Walton Hall Park.

I see transport and access being discussed again too. I can see why there are misgivings but surely part of the reason so much transport passes GP is partly because a large business trades there i.e. Everton? Likewise the reason WHP has poorer access is because there are no large businesses and fewer houses there at the moment and when Everton move there that situation will change? The slight differences mentioned by Tom will resolve.

WhatÂ’s changed? How do we know that they will invest any more than the ٞ that they have put into the Club over the last 15 years?

Why are people so intent on staying at Goodison?? Sentiment and history counts for very little in this day and age, I mean we havenÂ’t won anything for 20 years now, have we? Our once great stadium and our proud history hasnÂ’t helped us win anything, has it?

Maybe the bogs? The car park? Something like that.

No, we definitely don't; we need to stay at Goodison.

nb: For anyone making similar strident 'this is this' pro-WHP statements, without providing accompanying reason/s or argument, I feel entitled to simply contradict.

Fair?

Absolutely fair that you contradict by the way – by the same token, can you offer up a viable Goodison Park future plan?

At Goodison, we make very little: tours only take place a few times a week, at Anfield it's every 15 minutes, at the Nou Camp on a bad day they get 2,500 through the door and similar at Madrid.

It's nice to be sentimental, but if we want to be with the big boys in the future, a new ground is the starting point.

Also remember the Sky money might not be there always. Administration is the way we will go if we don't have any other revenue streams.

We could do with a shorter skirt, better legs, firmer tits, something to get the pulse racing a bit – if you get my meaning.

I prefer to support Tom Hughes ( an engineer with knowledge and experience in stadium design and build) than Bill Kenwright (a notorious liar) and Robert Elstone (the board's mouthpiece).

Logic should tell you that it is more cost effective to create 10,000 new seats and improve amenities at an existing stadium than to build a whole new pitch and 50000 seat stadium.

We all know that EFC have to improve income and stay competitive but I remind all fans that Old Trafford was only a similar size to GP in the late 80's and now is arguably the best Stadium in the UK after Wembley.

Newcastle is far more landlocked and a smaller footprint than GP yet still accommodates that magical 50000+. after development work there.

GP has held more than 70000 people and world cup games as well as seeing the 4th most successful top division side for over 100 years.Surely the history of the club and stadium is worth more than throwing away for some cheap tart.

I prefer to support Tom Hughes (an engineer with knowledge and experience in stadium design and build) than Bill Kenwright (a notorious liar) and Robert Elstone (the board's mouthpiece).

Logic should tell you that it is more cost effective to create 10,000 new seats and improve amenities at an existing stadium than to build a whole new pitch and 50,000-seat stadium.

We all know that EFC have to improve income and stay competitive but I remind all fans that Old Trafford was only a similar size to GP in the late '80s and now is arguably the best Stadium in the UK after Wembley.

Newcastle is far more landlocked and a smaller footprint than GP yet still accommodates that magical 50,000+. after development work there.

GP has held more than 70,000 people and World Cup games as well as seeing the 4th most successful top division side for over 100 years. Surely the history of the club and stadium is worth more than throwing away for some cheap tart.

That's better, a few reasons, something for me to work with.

So absolutely agree with you re Goodison in it's present state, but (luckily for me) Jay (180) has just provided a very good argument against 'we have to move' and you've even given the answer yourself (shorter skirt, better legs etc).

I accept there maybe a very good reason why this isn't possible, but I have never heard one from the club.

Over the years, all suggestions of revamping Goodison have been dismissed by the club but I can't remember them ever saying "And here's why,...."

And this, given our board's record for shiftiness and fuck-ups, makes me, at best, uneasy and at worst, suspicious.

Spurs are building a new ground from scratch, Chelsea are looking to do the same. Adding a few extra seats to one of the stands would not improve the facilities for the rest of the ground, I mean we have a tent in the car park for hospitality, for god's sake!

The reason given by the club for not developing Goodison has been mentioned over and over and is clear in most people's view anyway – there isn't room to significantly develop the whole ground and it's not economically viable.

Whilst I don't know about it being economically viable, I can certainly see with my own eyes that there certainly isn't the room on the current footprint.

I just want to know from all those that are against relocating, what exactly is the problem if it's only under a mile away? What is the problem with that? Not like we would be moving to Milton Keynes!

Also my grandad passed away there too. A dull 0-0 against Norwich as I recall.

It is a great stadium but memories and traditions are transferable from a place and I believe it's time to move on.

Peter (#141) makes some good comments about EitC and I'm not sure if anyone is making this connection but just a few weeks past, Mark Carney, head of the Bank of England no less, joined the EitC board. I think this sends out a very strong statement of intent about how this worthy aspect of our great club will act as a focal point for the financial investment needed.

I'd also like to add that I'm not waiting for the day some big high roller comes in and sweeps up our club. Bill has his faults but in reality I want connection to the community and a great football team on the pitch more than the bought riches of others. With a new stadium, revenue will be generated and the club can move forward in the right way – the Everton way.

My only contention is I do not trust Kenwright and cronies to develop a quality stadium and I still believe that pound for pound it will be better and more economical to redevelop GP.

Take a look at some of the proposals for redeveloping Goodison before reaching your conclusion.

We preach 'We go the game' and will have empty seats everywhere tomorrow night with people blaming the price, which is still far cheaper than that lot charged against a far less glamorous team than we are playing.

Yes we do need a stadium to try and catch up to that level and I would be happy to move if it was done correctly; my biggest worry is wasting another five years on fancy videos etc only for it to fall flat again and with our past history it's a good possibility and then what?

If the club cannot guarantee this is going to happen then we really cannot risk wasting another five or so years letting Goodison fall behind, Goodison could have been staged developed over the past two decades, just like Villa did on a similar footprint, however we wasted those years and money on false dreams, this one has to happen.

● Planning permission granted - 2105....

● Enquiries and objections take us to 2017....

● New Lib-Dem Council announce City is bankrupt - 2018

● Plans on hold due to interested parties - 2020...

● Robert Earl snuffs it.....

● Goodison Park crumbles into dust....

'Most people' eh?

Could we have their names and addresses?

Tell you what, just show me a link that is a response from the club that explains why any of the (at least 2) specific detailed proposals put to them, are flawed.

I mean presumably in your work, if you felt you had an idea that solved a problem and your solution was rejected, you'd expect more than a cursory 'naaaar'

You add..

"Whilst I don't know about it being economically viable, I can certainly see with my own eyes that there certainly isn't the room on the current footprint"

Hmmm...with your own eyes...really?

Don't get me wrong, not knocking your eyesight but are you a design expert or an architecht?

My guess is that (like me), you're neither and so have to (nb: and should) rely on others who know more and/or have expertise in this field.

Why not, before giving reasons like 'it's only a mile away' take a look at the (detailed) design linked below that was put together by people who know a lot more than you and me.

http://ToffeeWeb.com/club/goodison/hughes_redev.asp

You end by saying - "I just want to know from all those that are against relocating, what exactly is the problem if it's only under a mile away? What is the problem with that? Not like we would be moving to Milton Keynes!"

Well, as I (and a few others) have said, I don't at this stage (ie: the stage when we know nothing) really have a problem with WHP as a location, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to ask questions and it doesn't mean I want to leave a Goodison that can possibly be developed (so apologies if I go with Tom Hughes's opinion over guesswork made as a result of what you can see).

Given we were told 'there is no plan B' and now the same people are saying 'Er..well apart from this one', are you really not interested in exploring every avenue and (key question) do you trust them?

Is he doing it as the best possible thing for EFC and as a spin off he gets a pile of cash?

or

is he doing it as the best possible thing for Bill Kenwright (and/or Green and Earl) and as a spin off we get a new stadium, which may be good on the face of it, but actually nothing like as good as could have been obtained?

Let's wait and see exactly WHAT they plan to build and HOW it is to be financed before we judge.

Proven liars this Board, just look at the Kirkby public enquiry for proof many times over.

As other people have mentioned, with Everton having to provide finances to the project and with costs going up all the time, I cannot see BK getting more done than statements to the media.

Even though I no longer live in Liverpool, I would have been delighted if Goodison Park could have been upgraded but not knowing what it would cost or if it is structurally feasible to do it, I hope that this move to WHP becomes a reality and not another publicity stunt.

With all the comments going on at Toffee Web about transport, parking and general criticism about WHP, does anybody know of another suitable site nearer the city centre or the waterfront that is not already purchased for future development?

Way too far to go to get excited. Let’s see what develops.

They had an allotment on edges of the park... in my sweetest dreams, my Granddad can soon look down and see where he used to grow his turnips now becoming the corner flag spot at the 'Sylvania Rd End' of the new stadium, which will likely be literally at the end of the road he grew up in. Needless to say, myself and my 8-year old son are also lifelong Toffees.

If we do go there I quite like the idea of 'Walton Hall Park' being the name instead of something silly like New Goodison - maybe name one of the stands after Goodison and another one after Dixie.

Bottom line is.....WHP should be judged on its own merits, and compared against what can be achieved at GP for equivalent outlay (and elsewhere) without having to reinvent the wheel.

I have no doubt that Goodison could be redeveloped, if only because you can redevelop anything. But the question is why would we want to? All Evertonians are attached to Goodison like an old pair of slippers or a knackered old Granny but this does not mean we have to be chained there forever any more than we had to be chained to Anfield. Those who continue to propose redevelopment remind me of Leonardo Da Vinci's helicopter. He was convinced it would fly. He was convinced it would fly because it was his idea and people often find it very difficult to give up on their own ideas.

Goodison is in the wrong place in the modern football world. She is hemmed in on all sides and there is no room for her to breathe. A redeveloped Goodison would blot out the sun from the neighbourhood even more than it does now. Who would like to live with such a looming edifice in perpetual view? Always looming, always present. Redevelopment, although it may increase capacity and improve facilities somewhat, will never change that. I agree that Walton Hall Park would not be my first choice if options were limitless but they are most definitely not. The town centre or the waterfront are not going to happen. Peel are not happy with and have no plans for a stadium by the river and I cannot think of anywhere in the town centre that is either available or would be welcoming to a football stadium.

If Walton Hall Park goes ahead (and I personally have my doubts for financial reasons!) it will be an Everton Stadium within the city which was the primary complaint during the Kirkby debate. It is, in fact, just over three quarters of a mile away. Evertonians will be able to catch the same buses, drink in the same pubs, use the same chippy. For many it will be more convenient than Goodison although for many it will be less so. Those who have a longer walk now will have a shorter one in the future and vice versa. The crowds I see walking down Walton Hall Avenue towrds Queens Drive on matchdays might be very pleased, those walking up from the other side of County Road may be disappointed. But that is the way it is now, getting to Goodison is easier for some than it is for others. So what's new?

Imagine it, Etched into the hillside in giant white letters like the Hollywood sign.........NIL SATIS NISI OPTIMUM

High up on Everton Brow, overlooking the royal blue Mersey, next to the symbol on our badge, Prince Ruperts Tower, a magnificent arena lit up in neon blue lighting up the night sky over our magnificent City........

With no property to cast a shadow over, there could be a huge stand built with as many rows of corporate boxes required and there would be no need to change the Gwladys Street stand or the main stand apart from removing support column’s and installing a new roof. There would also be enough room for a hotel and car park, that’s if the whole piece of land was obtained.

But as the board have failed in that and, from what I can see, it could still be possible to rebuild the two stands to a smaller level (in terms of height and width) which would only require some of the playground area of the school, some of the van yard and about half of the houses located on Muriel Street and Diana Street.

If I could offer any advice to this board it would be this................

Start buying these properties now/as soon as they become available, so that – in 10 years time, when we’re in this same position after another couple of failed stadium moves – we’ll be in a position to at least lay down some bricks.

Half the people on this thread can see the constraints the club are working with in regards to finance and indeed space to develop GP. More importantly so do the people actually running the club, who I'm sure, whether or not you think so, are in a lot better position than you, I and Tom Hughes to know this.

I don't need to be a design expert or an architect to see how land-locked GP is. I don't need to be a design expert or an architect to see that improving space, seating, facilities, adding extra 10,000(+) seats, hospitality etc we need a larger footprint than we have.

Our current footprint is just over half the size of the likes of Old Trafford, The Emirates, Stadium of Light, St James Park, The Etihad but to name a few. To build a comparable size ground on the current site, we would need all the land from the school, and all the streets of Bullens Road, and it would still be a tight squeeze, that is unless you're suggesting we just throw a few stands up above the Park End and fill the corners on, at a stretch a new stand around the Bullens, just leave the rest of the ground in its current run down state??

I have seen Tom's plans a few times and it is not that I don't like them or not in favour of staying at GP, but I just don't see how it is possible with just a 10 m land grab like he has mentioned before, not when you consider the size of the footprint of new modern stadia.

Also people on one hand say BK is trying to do this on the cheap for a quick sale with the highest profit possible, then, why if Tom's plans would be the cheapest and most viable possible are the club looking to spend more money moving to a differnent location? Bit of a contradiction isn't it? Or maybe it is the most and only viable option to move to a new location due to finances and space?!

I do not oppose any move away from GP. If the plans for WHP appear to be an iconic stadium with 65k seats that all are near to the field, fitting within regeneration plans for the area, with the right cost structure, with a plan for the infrastructure, I will embrace WHP as the path forward. But the board don't deserve that kind of trust based on the Kirkby-disaster. That's why most ToffeeWebbers first want to see details before they get carried away. If the plans unravel a 44k seat below-standard Alex Nyarko Memorial Stadium costing the club over 200M and expecting the fans to go by cycle, I'd rather stay at Goodison, redeveloped or not.

It's funny that you are concerned about people losing their homes and the loss of light at Goodison, but that you don't seem to mind taking away green park land less than a mile down the road. Don't see that logic - both projects will affect the people living in the respective area either way.

You might not also be aware that KEIOC have been quite supportive of the notion of WHP in the past, so I'm not sure why you mention them..... or is this a hangover from losing Kirkby? I believe they are quite open minded at present, at least until they see far more substance.

Goodison is not hemmed in on all sides at all. The park end could literally accommodate any size of stand, and on the Bullens Rd side there are only 2 streets abutting it with a school that is already prime for rebuilding. In otherwords, there is potential for redevelopment, and that can be far less onerous and problematic than at Anfield, with 50k total capacity achieveable by adding as few as 15,000 new seats on these two sides.... with some remodelling of the other two to remove the vast majority of obstructions. It can also be done in affordable phases, thus allowing demand to be gauged as capacity increases, ensuring resources aren't wasted on capacity that we might not need. There is no way that building 15k new seats would need to cost anywhere near as much as building a whole 50k elsewhere. That's a mathematical nonsense.... hence the reason why Liverpool and the vast majority of other clubs have chosen to redevelop.

If you don't understand "why anyone might want to redevelop" to preserve the site of the world's first purpose built football stadium, the talismanic home of football, that has witnessed more top flight games than any other, then I'm quite sure that history lesson would be wasted on you too.......

Your grasp of the transport situation is similarly wayward.... but no surprises there. Put it this way, if GP isn't a suitable location, then WHP with its substantially longer walking distances from most bus routes and train stations certainly isn't either. The truth is, the only areas that are better suited are those with higher public transport capacities.... and they are more central, not further away from town. That is a logistical constant you cannot manipulate.

That isn't to say that WHP isn't suitable as a site..... just slightly less so than GP in transport terms at present. Merseyrail expansion and trams could make a big difference, but they're not planned and would benefit GP equally in any case. WHP is actually easier for me.... I'm one of those that walks from that direction..... however, I certainly won't be giving it my blind support till I see what it's all about, and how it compares to a GP revelopment with a similar outlay. I thought that was what discerning Evertonians were supposed to be about.... the sheep got off the train at Kirkby, although we still hear the occasional bleat....

Why would the remaining pile of rubble need a new roof?

I think the only reason that Goodison can not be redeveloped is strictly on cost and not that it can not be done.

There's enough engineers on this site who can confirm or rebut this. I'm 99% sure my info is from people on these pages.

"There is no way that building 15k new seats would need to cost anywhere near as much as building a whole 50k elsewhere. That's a mathematical nonsense.... hence the reason why Liverpool and the vast majority of other clubs have chosen to redevelop." – So are you just saying add 15k new seats?? Not rebuild the stands, improve seat space, leg room, concourse space, facilities for everyone........ Just add a few new seats??

In your plans you draw three new stands (Main, Park and Bullens), are these the existing stands but modified, or are they completely new stands all together, i.e. existing stands pulled down and rebuilt from scratch? If You're keeping the original stands but remodelling, how are we improving/increasing space within the stands??

I'm not having a dig by the way, it's just this is what is confusing me regards your plans and suggestions.

Why are they in a better position to know this? (whatever ’this’ is).

Coz they’re on the board?

Coz they wear nice suits and smile?

I would back Tom Hughes (someone with actual experience) over anyone on our board to know what can/can’t be done.

(specially as Tom didn’t try to drag us to Kirkby, tell us there was no plan B or spend years bullshitting us).

Sorry but at this stage, if it’s between your ’expertise’, Kenwright’s or Tom’s, I’ll go with Tom’s.

The ONLY reason I would favour WHP or any other site relocation is if the stadium being proposed is truly worthy of our great club. If we are given a cheap, 3rd rate option with no massive benefit in terms of capacity and increased turnover possibilities then I firmly believe we should look at what Tom proposes.

The reason I was always against DK was more the fact that the design was so uninspiring rather than it meaning that we move outside of the city boundaries.

Regardless of whether we could tab an extra 10,000 seats onto the old ground, it still doesn't mask the fact (and it is a fact) that it's dated and had it's day long ago. Everton cannot live in history alone, and taking off the blue tinted glasses for a moment, everyone needs to realise that.

We need to move forward, and the future is not Goodison Park - though it pains me to say it. Have you been to the Etihad, Wembley, Cardiff or the Emirates? They're modern inside & out, and make Goodison look like a shabby old shoe-box full of old love letters.

If people are worried about atmosphere, there's nothing to stop the new ground having some of the old flavour of a compact ground with atmosphere - look at Dortmund. OK the cost of their ground is probably out of our reach, but we need a new ground, not a tarted up old one. It's time people moved on, dropped the past and looked to the future beyond even our own lifetimes.

A new, modern stadium is what's required, we need to change our image and become the new, modern Everton, not the stuffy old Everton of yesteryear.

Redeveloping GP is not and never was going to happen, we missed the boat on that one when the park stand went up, they should have carried on round the stadium.

We are going round in circles arguing the point, the board have made it very clear that a new stadium away from our current site is the preferred option.

'Why are they in a better position to know this? (whatever 'this' is).'

Why are the board and owners of the club in a better position to know whether a redevelopment of GP is viable in terms of both finance and space?? You don't know the answer to that question??

Maybe it is best you follow the opinion of one person who has his own ideas and opinions and undoubtedly a great knowledge of stadium design etc, but does he really have full knowledge of the club's finances and and whether they can afford this phased redevelopment on the current site – no he doesn't.

You seem to be claiming that BK and the rest of the board are not to be trusted, out to make a fast profit or something. If this is the case and Tom is correct, and redevelopment would be cheaper and a better option all around, then why haven't these con-men running our club gone for the cheap option?? You sound like a slippy politician, who quite frankly doesn't have any opinion of your own, you're just hell bent on opposing anything the other party suggest.

There are people here already on their way to WHP and they haven't seen anything yet... no images, no figures, no nothing.... all I can say is: I hope they never need new double-glazing!

It appears that Eugene and Tom are for the Goodison angle, one which I must say I favour.

Eugene says 'Sorry but at this stage, if it's between your 'expertise', Kenwright's or Tom's, I'll go with Tom's.'

Now I'm not trying to be argumentative but at the risk of offending Tom - can he please tell me what his 'Expertise' is in this respect. I have followed his comments and get the feeling that he is 'knowledgeable ' about the transport links in the city with particular emphasis on buses and bus routes.

Is there anything else that I need to know that will swing me from Nay to Yae or are we just dependant of Tom Eugene Salmonds say so's.

Eugene acts the agent provocateur and quite rightly wants proof that Goodison is a non starter - so do I - but are there any FACTS out there that will sway the masses one way or another.

They have put ZERO investment into the club and the feeling (certainly from me) is that they will develop an inferior quality stadium so that they can sell the club for a huge profit on what they originally paid for the shares.

A lot of the experts in stadium development have costed up redeveloping GP with very impressive specifications and the club has consistently refused to even look into it.

I suggest you look into the archives to look at some of the proposals including one in 2001 that was fully costed up at 40 million.

Newcastle have something similar with only two sides of their stadium but it’s the Celtic model which springs to mind when I think of what can be done. The main stand should be our centre-piece along with a clear vision of the church behind a glass structure to trap sound and link the stand’s together.

Liverpool in their usual despicable manner have been buying a lot of property around their ground for years and letting it go to rack and ruin, therefore turning the surrounding area into a slum.

They then made cash offers to the remaining residents to purchase their properties and secure enough land to extend.

We are not that ruthless but I do understand your frustration at not being able to rebuild, like I said, I think we have missed the boat on that one.

Only reason I ask is that stadium is rarely capacity filled, even tonight in Europe according to commentators. Is that because of a lack of quality seats and the existence of the obstructed view seats, and a new stadium/re-developed one would have more decent ones?

Also, is there a waiting list for season tickets like I hear there is over the park? Cheers for any insight you can offer!!

Fair point on those other grounds, but Goodison is surrounded, have you not noticed? There's bugger all room to redevelop it, and from what I can tell it would need to be pretty much knocked down and rebuilt, stand by stand wouldn't it?

That in it self creates a huge issue with buying up the land around it, time with lower gates while each bit is redone, and then what? You have this weird hybrid stadium which takes years to complete, and the club staggers into more & more debt while it's being done? Plus who's going to finance a rebuild that only really profits Everton?

It's pie in the sky, cant be done - we don't have the money on our own, and need to do something akin to WHP because it'll be part-financed by the regeneration project attached to it. I think a lot of people are missing this key point, just to suit their keep-Goodison Park-alive agenda.

I agree with you, I'd love us to stay, I just don't see it as in any way realistically viable for Everton football club, and not you, or Eugene or anyone at the club has ever come close to convincing me, or anyone else on my side of the fence, otherwise.

We all have a strong opinion on this, I just wish people would be less provocative in trying to make their voice heard louder & louder because nobody else's opinion seems worthy to them as Evertonians. It's such a shame because we're all entitled to have our say without being made to feel second-rate all the time (and is one of the reasons I don't post on here as much as I used to).

In my humble opinion, the reason the club want to move, as much as anything else I've written above and believe in, is that they need to leave a lasting legacy for the club, and the city. Not just redeveloping the old ground, but developing a new one and the area around it. We need backing, and that can only be achieved by getting financial help from someone who also benefits.

It seems really simple to me. Let Goodison go, move forward, look to a new modern Everton (have I said this already!?), stop relying on history. I lived in London for many years, and there's a feeling that Everton supporters are lost in the past in so many ways, which I think is true – it also appears to have a real bearing on how people feel about the stadium and the clubs image. An image that could be changed massively by building a new ground. The affect would be widespread, in my humble opinion.

In the scheme you're talking about, this is 3 new stands with a refurbished mainstand side. All new stands, built to modern standards in terms of leg room and c-value sightlines, using actual site plans. It was the scheme adopted by KEIOC to demonstrate how the current site could be redeveloped with only a minimal footprint expansion on the Bullens side, hence the reason why the depth of the Bullens stand is less than the two end stands. This basically involved just bridging of the existing road with loss of a few end terraces due to light and circulatory/access issues.

However, this scheme was just one of several variations on the theme that were part of a project I had produced over 10 years earlier as part of my degree course. It was chosen simply because: it was the only one that I still had fully drawn up, and almost ready to present at the time of the Kirkby vote.

In the other schemes, I looked at various other options and approaches, replacing one, two, three or all stands. In one I even looked at rebuilding completely within the current footprint, to fully exploit the odd shape of the site. This involved phased reorientation of the pitch and ultimately four new stands. This presented various phasing problems but a homogeneous end result, with a full closing roof as at Shalke.

In others I looked at what was redeemable within the existing structures, and replacing individual stands/tiers to give incremental capacity increases. As well as improved corporate and general back-of-house provision where possible. All schemes were sightline modelled. It is these schemes that I'm talking about when I say adding 15k new seats to produce 50k capacity. There are several ways to achieve this, with the Bullens remodelling being the most likely route for obvious reasons. Some of these designs are also on various sites I believe.

Brin (#229), James (#236)

People have asked about my background..... I'm not really sure of the relevance on a discussion forum where we should be only concerned with the simple facts.... I mean, I haven't asked anyone's backgrounds when they've stated quite profoundly and categorically that we can or can't do this or that, or that we HAVE to move because of XYZ. I just want to know what X, Y and Z are. The arguments should be able to stand alone surely?

However, I can say that I have a degree in design engineering, and have worked in structural/mechanical design and Marine Engineering for over 25 years, working on many major construction and transport projects, including some structural analysis for stadium projects. I studied stadium design as part of my degree, and have been fascinated by the subject area since my first visit to GP over 40 years ago.

I don't profess to be an expert in all aspects of it, but I doubt there are many books/publications I haven't got or read on it. I have also visited most stadiums in the UK, and many worldwide, so have an appreciation for what has been achieved elsewhere, and how these places function.

I am not against moving at all.... and I am not against WHP. However, I don't believe the redevelopment option has been fully explored at all..... and this HAS to be the first stage in the process if we are to be sure about the merits of leaving what we already have. I believe what we have is very special, and that it can be enhanced to a very high standard. That enhanced vision has to be the one compared to any proposal, to ensure that we get the best solution for our club.

In terms of redeveloping Goodison, having the space to do so is an important point. I was at Old Trafford last weekend with some of my Man Utd supporting mates. (A weekend on the beer for me, nothing more I promise!) There is an awful lot of space surrounding Old Trafford and I wonder if this made it easier for Utd to re-develop the ground in the way that they did.

I'm no expert on this, and you clearly have a lot more experience in the field than I ever will. It does seem odd that the club won't explore the expansion of Goodison in some ways, but I do still believe those in power have the club and the community in mind when thinking about what to do moving forward. With that in mind, I still back the idea of moving because it 'must' have been explored already by the club and deemed not to be viable – right?

We as Evertonians always feel as though we deserve to know literally everything about the club, and that's a right we deserve the right (!) to hang onto. Having said that, the club reserve the right not to tell us everything as well, don't they?

Maybe I'm missing something, so please tell me if I am.

When Joe Anderson was interviewed on local radio, he was asked if he had sat down with Everton and 'shook hands' on any agreements. He said he hadn't had any formal meetings with the club yet, and there were no plans to do so.

So, that's were we are at present – a pipe dream.

Merely saying that redevelopment is not viable without giving reasons is not enough for anyone to make an informed choice.

So why would we take their word that redevelopment is not viable without reasons, or even refuting schemes put forward that demonstrate how it can be done?

Personally I don't believe the line about the board wanting to recoup their money, but that's merely an opinion.

I'm not really into "they can do what they want because it's theirs" argument. I'm just interested in the issues and process followed to move us forward.

I asked the question directly at the time of DK, and the consideration for redevelopment was cursory at best.

The process that was followed was that a third party approached the club. They asked the club to be an enabler for an out of town retail development. After that, every effort was aimed at solely making the problems fit the solution...... rather than the other way around, with redevelopment dismissed out of hand.

All the concerns with that project, and the false claims that supported it, where exposed at the inquiry. Afterwards the club basically claimed they were taken for a ride by their partners..... which in itself is a ridiculous assertion when you consider that a group of ordinary Evertonians had seen through all the issues months before.

Therefore, I believe clarity of process is essential. This will be the single biggest decision in our club's history.... and we need to avoid a repeat peformance of the fundamentally flawed approach followed for DK. The general rule of thumb would be if people have looked at all the options, they can readily prove it. Show what can be achieved via redevelopment by comisssioning a design competition, whereby architectural firms can submit outline plans with costings to transform GP. Then and only then can you make a valid comparison. This should already be in place as they have had years to do it... and others have even managed that much.

http://www.keioc.net/index.php?page=walton-hall-park

I'm a shareholder and feel that on this all-important issue we all have a right to clarity....... especially as we will be expected to vote on it.

Thanks for the thorough explanation. Clearly you are better qualified than most of us on here and maybe, just maybe youÂ’re right that it can be done at GP. Maybe the board have consulted architects, planners etc to see if the plans they have are viable at GP.

I donÂ’t really know what to think any more. The thing that confuses me is that if it possible to develop GP, and it would be a more cost effective solution then why arenÂ’t we actually doing this, doesnÂ’t make sense to relocate, spend more in the process, not if, like you say, It can be done where we are, just as good and just as cost-effective.

To be honest, I donÂ’t even think WHP will even come to fruition, and if it does, I just hope it will be something we can all be proud of and something worth leaving GP for.

It’s interesting to note that WHP unlike Stanley Park which the dark side were going to build on is neither listed nor protected by any covenants and they sailed through planning applications a couple of times – despite the expected small amount of local opposition of course. Walton Hall Park is quite a bit bigger than Stanley Park which is a plus too.

In short if the club has the 100% backing of Liverpool council (It seemingly has – Mayor Joe is a blue), can somehow find a realistic funding package (remains to be seen) then I sincerely hope the club succeeds because I never want us to consider anything remotely like a move to Kirkby or any other edge or out of city location again.

At the end of the day, the decision process is governed by a few individuals, and is only as well executed as the motives and abilities of those individuals. How many projects have the current board delivered during their tenure?

There is no doubt that a blank canvas can appear less problematic for the club. Staying at GP will involve negotiations to extend footprint, and manage enabling projects and phased development on or near club land. No small undertaking. A separate site averts much of this responsibility.... and let's face it, the club has farmed out so much of its responsibilities over the past few years, it's perhaps no surprise that they should prefer this less fuss approach. It doesn't necessarily mean we'll arrive at the best solution.

It is also not unusual for a change of ownership to cause a dramatic change in stance.... as we've seen at LFC and other clubs. If full assessment of GP has been carried out by several companies, then it should be readily available. At the time of DK, the only real assessment was carried out by the company charged with delivering Kirkby, and was drafted during the ballot in response to KEIOC..... it was an after-thought, very much akin to all the political leaders running to Scotland last week.

Tom I think you've put your finger on the reason the club don't want to re-develop Goodison. I agree with you and if you look at pretty much every decision they've taken off the pitch you'll see the same thing: short-term thinking, always taking the 'easier' option. Finch Farm and the Kitbag deal are two good examples of this.

Didn't I read somewhere that they had to find 㿊m towards a new stadium? Seems they could easily raise that figure when you think that is one Ross Barkley, or John Stones.

You can be certain of one thing – our board won't be risking any of their own personal wealth, even though they would be major beneficiaries of any sale.

So we could rename a stand for x years as a simple funding solution before even considering the more complicated enabling solutions for redevelopment, like hotels that Tom Hughes has previously put forward.