Match commentator Gary Weaver made the suggestion during the overseas broadcast of this evening's 3-0 win over Newcastle United, adding that the talk around L4 is that a takeover of the club "is very much on". That has led to fevered talk among Evertonians on social media.
Additionally, there are unconfirmed rumours that the American investors heading up a takeover consortium were in attendance at Goodison this evening.
Yesterday, the Times journalist who first broke the story that a group, led by John Jay Moores and Charles Noell, had entered a six-week period of due diligence ahead of a proposed £200m buyout of Everton provided an update of sorts on his Facebook page.
Rory Smith said that, as far as he knows, discussions between the Everton board and the US-led consortium were still ongoing:
As far as I can tell - from the information I can gather - the deal is still alive. There has been no definitive conclusion reached, but nobody has walked away or pulled the plug or anything. What should happen next is another round of talks, fine-tuning price and ironing out any difficulties.
That's no guarantee it will lead to a deal, but it's worth bearing in mind two things: they have already tried to invest in a club (Swansea) so know what the process entails, and how drawn-out it can be, and they have also had lawyers and various consultants engaged on Everton for some time: months, certainly. That is an awful lot of money invested already just in fees.
That is all I know as things stand. There is no concrete answer yet. These are enormously complicated deals, and they take a long time to come together. But there is still, to the best of my knowledge, a deal to be done.
Everton Chief Executive Robert Elstone has asserted on more than one occasion that the club have looked into the possibility of redeveloping Goodison but concluded that it would be prohibitively expensive.
If there is serious intent on the part of the potential US investors to buy the Blues, an investigation into both redevelopment and relocation options would be a natural part of their examination.
Reader Comments (91)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 03/02/2016 at 23:32:13
2 Posted 03/02/2016 at 23:35:06
3 Posted 03/02/2016 at 23:38:13
Any outsider will just go for the cheaper option, and that to me is the main worry about these buyers, as they will have 100% control once they have majority stock shares.
I think Bill Kenwright should stay on as an advisor, in some capacity, will it happen, I doubt it.
4 Posted 03/02/2016 at 23:41:18
5 Posted 03/02/2016 at 23:49:57
6 Posted 03/02/2016 at 23:54:15
7 Posted 03/02/2016 at 23:56:40
8 Posted 03/02/2016 at 23:59:02
9 Posted 03/02/2016 at 00:02:24
10 Posted 03/02/2016 at 00:04:22
The biggest issue is the school and the rear of the Park end which we no longer own. However, the council did say they would help us so maybe the school is a possibility.
Phase 1 add an extra tier to the Park End c £15m
Phase 2 redevelop Gwladys Steet c £20m
Phase 3 state-of-the-art redevelopment of the Bullens 50m including new offices, changing rooms and executive suites.
There you have it: 55,000 all seater stadium already strategised for the new owners.
11 Posted 03/02/2016 at 00:08:15
If we build on the existing footprint, we will end up with a second rate ground.
12 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:09:41
13 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:11:38
However, someone told me recently that this would mean compulsory purchase orders and folk being forced to move against their wishes. It was to be honest a Liverpool fan who told me but is it true?
14 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:15:32
In fact I'm starting to think "redevelopment" sounds more and more like a disastrous recipe for an ugly hotch potch and embarrassing stadium.
We need a brand spanker.
15 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:21:46
16 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:29:53
The school has also been earmarked for redevelopment several times over the yrs. The Park end is a blank canvas. The two front pillars on the Main Stand can be readily removed as can the ones obstructing views in the Upper Gwladys St.
Result would be 50k+ unobstructed views 40-80 boxes. Obstructed views reduced by 90%; Tall stands on all 4 sides..... or you could have a Britannia Stadium single tier clone elsewhere for more cost.......
17 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:36:28
18 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:37:58
So that leads to option two, the very rich club negotiating with private landlords (a good proportion of the housing stock around Goodison is owned for letting) on a house by house basis. If anything that would lead to more property's being bought by private landlords knowing full well that they'll get their profit and some on top, back from the club.
Either way, it would be a long and difficult process, the easiest and most cost effective way for new investors would be to build a new stadium elsewhere, and that I think is what will happen.
19 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:44:38
20 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:49:57
It's a no-brainer with those figures. A new stadium is only going to give us an extra few million a year in revenue. I don't really think it is viable to build a new stadium for the benefit it would give us.
We should max out Goodison though.
21 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:54:51
They are business investments; once a football club becomes interested in buying them, you're looking at maybe four or five times that figure to buy them, and then you'll get the real shrewdies who'll hang on and on and on and end up getting about £500k for a two-up two-down in Bullens Road.
22 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:55:25
23 Posted 04/02/2016 at 00:59:11
24 Posted 04/02/2016 at 01:09:46
I honestly can't see a way that new investors are prepared to wait that long while other more instant options will be on the table. The cost difference doesn't actually make a difference if you take the time lapse between the two into account.
25 Posted 04/02/2016 at 01:13:15
It is rumoured that Everton already own several of these end terrace houses on Murial and Diana St.... Furthermore Liverpool bought more than ten times the number of houses that we require... many via LCC CPO process that didn't take yrs at all. The last blocks bought and demolished in just a few months and not at extortionate prices at all.
15,000 new upper tier seats at Goodison Park spread across the Bullens and Park End will never cost as much as 50k new seats at WHP or any other out-of-town site. Furthermore, they can all be high-value elevated view seats. The WHP scheme only had one two-tier stand.... This would have four.
All at the home of the the world's first purpose-built football stadium.
26 Posted 04/02/2016 at 01:24:11
27 Posted 04/02/2016 at 01:33:07
An executive tier can be hung beneath it, with some of the worst rear rows beneath at the church end of the stand lost. Reducing the obstructed views on this side dramatically...
The legroom is compatible with most sections of Old Trafford and Anfield.... and increased legroom can be provided in the new tiers. All significantly cheaper than building anything compatible elsewhere.
28 Posted 04/02/2016 at 01:38:53
Fact is, even if we were to get new owners, we then need to go through all the correct avenues to begin the process of building up Goodison Park or finding new premises.
That is a long process in anyone's eyes.
29 Posted 04/02/2016 at 01:41:40
30 Posted 04/02/2016 at 01:42:56
And then you have the majority of it owned by buy to let investors/landlords, some very savvy on the workings and processes of local govt departments and know how to get the very best deals for themselves.
You have to bear in mind that it costs us (the general public or in this case private landlords) nothing to appeal a decision by a local council more or less right up to the supreme court. The council on the other hand would have to spend millions defending their position, and then you'll get the ambulance chasing lawyers involved who'll get all the private landlords together to take counter action against the local council.
Believe me, I know how this works, I've been involved in something similar with my company that started in 2006; the council (not LCC) lost the case. I'm sorry I can't give you any detail of the why's and how's, but it has cost that particular council around £16 million and counting.
31 Posted 04/02/2016 at 01:48:15
A key question is at whose behest were these supposed surveyors brought in. The would-be buyers I hope. Sounds to me like a deal is more or less settled. All hinges on the survey... just like your house really.
I'm sure I can say without prejudice, hypothetically, that in the pragmatic world of local politics and business, The Council might be prevailed upon to wave the 'promise' of a Compulsory Purchase Order to be used as a stick, if the carrot of a decent but not silly buyout price proved not enough for some chancers, sorry, Investors.
32 Posted 04/02/2016 at 02:04:26
Could be taken two ways; one: the commentator doesn't think anyone's got blag tv boxes/ apps in this country so is just using it for his (possibly American audience for possibly American investors who may or may not be investing in the club). Or he knows more than Sky do, and that's just not possible... is it?
33 Posted 04/02/2016 at 02:10:08
Liverpool have done precisely that and on a bigger scale than we need to, including recently refurbished 3 storey properties on Anfield Rd itself, which were of far higher quality and value. A precedent has been set..... and only 500m away on an identical project.
Everton only need a few end terraces to generate the space required for an extended Bullens, and a few more for loss of light issues. Liverpool flattened whole blocks.... The days of the two old ladies holding out on Kemlyn Rd are long gone, and this would be a tiny CPO for a council that has demolished thousands of similar houses in recent clearances.
It certainly isn't prohibitive in terms of cost or time..... especially since any relocation could be similarly problematic in terms of protesting residents or businesses.
34 Posted 04/02/2016 at 02:11:30
Not really my area of expertise so happy for someone to correct me.
35 Posted 04/02/2016 at 02:32:43
Like a period house being redeveloped and retaining the historic features, I'd keep the Main Stand, bring back the visibility of the church and go for an ultra modern wrap around.
36 Posted 04/02/2016 at 02:44:14
A street similar to those around Goodison becomes subject to a CPO, the street contains around 15 terraced houses, all derelict bar three, two owned by the occupiers one owned by a landlord, all three are offered the market price for their properties, the owners want to accept but the landlord persuades them not to (telling them they will get above market value for their properties) which they will, because it's cheaper for the council to pay a bit more than defend an appeal.
The landlord then challenges the council and asks them to provide justification for the CPO; the council will provide justification and the landlord will instantly appeal and possibly start his own action against the council. In the meantime, the other two owners will have been offered a bit more for their properties by the council. The landlord (who's now their friend they think, will tell them to accept the offer), leaving him as the sole negotiator for the whole street.
That landlord then, at very little cost to him, will appeal every decision, and provide mitigation however spurious, that the council must address (by the way, the landlord will have a "tenant" who will also be suing the council for leaving him in an empty street that has now become a ghetto).
This will drag that process out for years and allow the landlord to negotiate a price way above market value for the property as well as suitable compensation for lost tenant income during that process.
Again, I can't disclose the whys and hows, but what I've described above is a real situation that started in 2009 and was concluded last year, the original offer for the property was around £40k and ended up at £93k plus £28k in lost revenue; the *tenants* compensation claim is ongoing...
37 Posted 04/02/2016 at 03:35:25
I understand the process, I have been in business and residential property leasing and development myself..... and have been involved in some similar negotiations on one of my properties and businesses..... and I realise they can be problematic, but there are several approaches that the club and council can adopt especially if they wave the regeneration banner at the whole scheme, with a joint venture to redevelop the school, add community facilities, new residential and commercial developments etc.
As few as 10-14 end terrace houses might release enough physical footprint for sufficient additional capacity on this side. With a further 10-12 for loss of light. 20-26 houses at £100k each (double their current value) is just £2-3m, which is peanuts in a stadium development..... and that doesn't take into account the number of houses for which the club are already the landlord..... The bottom line being that Liverpool negotiated the clearance of several whole streets in quite a short period..... and the council have lots of experience clearing far bigger areas all over the city in recent yrs..... The CPO process can be quite stringently applied... plus at the same time the club have alternatives meaning the most problematic landlords might realise that this may the best offer they'll ever get for these houses. I've even read that Liverpool didn't have to pay over the odds for their acquisitions..... We could be fairer.
We should also remember that we have already demolished dozens of houses around GP in the past. There used to be 3 rows of houses behind the Park end and houses on both sides of Gwladys St.....
Yes, it may take some time, but we've been waiting on a new stadium for yrs, what's the sudden hurry? While the negotiation process takes place the planning can be sorted, and the Park end enlarged either as a two tier with boxes or the biggest single tier end stand in the country. Allowing us to operate at or above our current capacity throughout the phased redevelopment.
38 Posted 04/02/2016 at 04:28:55
39 Posted 04/02/2016 at 06:25:21
In other words, Rory Smith (who loves nothing more than belittling others professional failings btw.....) is telling us:
'I don't know anymore than I did 6 weeks ago when I got the original info, everything's gone cold since then but I can't sound like I'm not in the know can I, I'm a journalist after all, so I'll just talk around it so I sound like I still have got my finger on the pulse, when really I havent got a clue.'
Thanks for that Rory.
40 Posted 04/02/2016 at 07:48:43
41 Posted 04/02/2016 at 08:00:39
If redevelopment was carried out, to the benefit of all of Walton, the locals may be more receptive to sacrificing some homes to achieve this. Have a look over at Hibs - Gamechanger launched to promote health,lives and opportunities launched just last month.
The scope and scale of the projects being planned to deliver community benefits is very significant, with medium-to-long-term projects including a health village, a learning and innovation zone, a family centre, and a healthy growing zone. A huge range of other ambitious projects and programmes are also being developed.
42 Posted 04/02/2016 at 08:44:47
I don't see how they can dispose of the steel girders that hold up the roof, but here's hoping.
43 Posted 04/02/2016 at 09:23:07
Many of us have banged on about redevelopment for 20 years.
The tortoise and the hare spring to mind.
The cost redevelopming with both projects starting on the same day will make moving more attractive.
But that's proved rubbish. I want to see Everton compare the cost of redevelopment now, compared to the projected cost of moving ground, in 5, 10, 15 and 20 years time.
44 Posted 04/02/2016 at 09:25:06
We could move the whole stadium toward Stanley Park
1) Demolish Park Emd and rebuild further toward Stanley Park.
2) Demolish whichever of the side stand you prefer first and second.
3) Demolish Gwaldys St and rebuild.
Incorporate a megastore im the stadium and offer the land of the curremt megastore for a possible rebuild pf the school.
The biggest problem would be the church, in terms of sentiment and listed status.
45 Posted 04/02/2016 at 10:33:59
46 Posted 04/02/2016 at 11:15:03
To me the restoration of GP, to equal or supass its former glory, would be significant in that it would equate the resortation of EFC to equal or surpass its former glory!
47 Posted 04/02/2016 at 11:30:17
Lots of mess to undo re finances and borrowings IF someone buys the club but they'll be looking at best possible option to generate returns... most likely would be phased re-development (hasn't some architect already shown this is feasible??). Please let this happen.
48 Posted 04/02/2016 at 11:41:49
Doing it the Spuds way:
They've also come up against massive opposition from local business leaders (the area is a shithole) BUT 100% ENIC's money talks and there won't be any delays now.
49 Posted 04/02/2016 at 12:00:18
50 Posted 04/02/2016 at 12:07:35
51 Posted 04/02/2016 at 12:32:07
I now only ever go for a seat on an isle even on occasion declining the offer of goin' the game purely because it's prohibitively uncomfortable. It makes the seating on Ryan Air seem like a beach recliner...
52 Posted 04/02/2016 at 12:35:56
53 Posted 04/02/2016 at 12:43:52
Don't know all the details, but the summer before last, the club ripped up the car park and started on a new superstore. The work was stopped when they found out they were building on land owned by somebody else. Not sure who, possibly the council. It's one of the assets Kenwright sold off.
54 Posted 04/02/2016 at 12:46:01
55 Posted 04/02/2016 at 13:33:52
Technically, Spurs are not redeveloping. They are demolishing the existing ground and building a new state-of-art-stadium.
We are being left behind as usual. Bring on new owners. Can't be worse than what we've got.
56 Posted 04/02/2016 at 13:49:07
57 Posted 04/02/2016 at 14:10:35
58 Posted 04/02/2016 at 14:52:33
Didn't you and Trevor Skempton do a presentation just prior to DK to the hierarchy showing how GP could be redeveloped.
And Michael/Lyndon I am sure there is an engineering study done about 2001 showing GP could be redeveloped for £40m somewhere in the archives.
I am not sure how to do this but here is a file of a GP development study which may be of interest.
59 Posted 04/02/2016 at 15:18:38
I have a few brothers, but none called John. That said, my dad did get around a bit, so who knows.
60 Posted 04/02/2016 at 16:16:38
61 Posted 04/02/2016 at 16:24:46
Yes, Trevor and I have put a few ideas forward over the years.
Almost 20yrs ago I looked at a few ways to redevelop the stadium, from preserving much of the existing structure and adding capacity by way of extensions, to replacing 1 or more whole stands or individual tiers. This became my major probject dissertation..... and took over a yr to complete including surveying the site and using site plans, and sightline modelling etc.
At the time of Destination Kirkby, I gave one of these outline concept schemes to KEIOC to exhibit as an option for redevelopment. .... I was against the Kirkby stadium for several reasons, and felt that there needed to be at least one other option presented before the ballot. At the time, I only had one complete set of drawings for one of the schemes I had looked at 10yrs before (3 new stand option). So that is what you may have seen. Later, some of the other schemes were posted on various websites as I found the drawings, or filled in the gaps.
The fact is, there are several ways to achieve significantly improved facilities at GP..... and because, we do not have to build a whole new stadium in one go, we can afford to create real quality and high value capacity by the incremental approach.
In simple terms as an example, if say the upper Bullens was replaced by a whole new upper tier of 10k seats, with the existing lower tier also extended by 3k.... This would be a nett increase of approx 8.5k.... bringing GP upto 48k on its own. This may satisfy most if not all of our short to medium-term capacity/facility requirements. A similar upper tier extension at Cardiff has just been completed for just over £2k per seat. A larger, slightly more complex new upper tier extension at GP would probably be between £3-5k per seat. The bottom tier extension would be as little as £1-1.5k per seat. Total cost for a completely transformed Bullens stand approx £30-55m. The Park End If simply extended into a vast single tier of 14k seats by extending the existing stand by 40 rows with a cranked corner section would could be done for £2-3k per seat approx £16-24m. Alternatively, a new upper tier to create a double-decker at this end with a row of boxes in between would probably be £2.5-4k per seat and could curve the corner into the new Bullens.... cost approx £20-32m. New total capacity approx 56k, cost approx £46-87m.... depending on various options.
By comparidon, the cost to produce a whole new basic single tier stadium of similar capacity with one two tier mainstand (WHP) would probably be in excess of £160m. To build a whole new stadium with large multi -tier stands on 3-4 sides as outlined above, would be £250m+ as with the new Spurs model. This is why the majority of clubs, especially the big clubs have chosen to redevelop.
Of course, aiming lower for say just 50-52k capacity brings those redevelopment osts down further. Some may even argue that in the short term we only need say 45k, with 20-40 new boxes, and obstructed views reduced to a minmum..... and this could be readily achieved at quite low cost, even with little or no footprint expansion. There is a whole range of options.
62 Posted 04/02/2016 at 16:35:10
IMO this is the problem with trying to redevelop unless the club can do a deal with the council and CPO the streets leading down to County rd and a bit of City road thrown in so we're looking at a serious amount of properties.
Another option would be to rerout Walton Lane and rejig Stanley Park but both options involve serious upheaval and protests.
63 Posted 04/02/2016 at 16:35:56
64 Posted 04/02/2016 at 16:40:48
65 Posted 04/02/2016 at 16:48:39
I drew up both options.... and I'm sure they're on someone's website.
I'm undecided tbh. Our tradition is for tall double -decker stands. The old Park end was the first proper double -decker at any football stadium. (Although I think Bradford park Avenue might contest that). Therefore there is a historical pointer for going that way. On the other hand the unity of a large single tier for generating atmosphere is also an enticing option..... and of course would be bigger and better than Anfield's Kop too..... diluting the pull that has on future generations.
The steepness of the existing Park end means we couldn't have a full double-decker in the traditional sense, as the geometry dictates that full overlapping would only be for a few rows.... but adding an upper tier offers the opportunity to create 20-30 boxes at this end with enough space to build conference/exhibition/lounge space with perhaps a hotel built in to use these facilities all year round, and help pay for the new stand.... and this cost-saving factor might be the decider on the question.
66 Posted 04/02/2016 at 17:09:30
The Bullens Rd provides a large proportion of the obstructed views and these would be eradicated completely by replacing the upper tier as I described above.
The next worse place is the mainstand. By removing the two front columns this makes the whole Top Balcony and the front half of the mainstand itself completely unobstructed. This can be achieved by re roofing woth a goal post truss (no footprint expansion); or by cable back stayed; or centenary towers holding up the existing roof.... again, no footprint expansion required.
There would still be some obstructed views at the rear of the Main Stand, particularly at the church end, but these will have been reduced by the removal of the front columns.... and if a new exec tier was placed beneath the Top Balcony, many of the worst effected seats will no longer exist. Similarly, the Gwladys St can also be re-roofed with a goal post truss to remove all upper tier obstructions.
Yes there would still be some obstructed views downstairs in the original terrace stand.... and these would be priced accordingly. However, the resultant stadium would still also have more unobstructed capacity, and more elevated views than WHP or DK for a fraction of the cost..... so I'm not sure a few hundred obstructed seats sold cheaply or given to kids is a major factor.
67 Posted 04/02/2016 at 17:16:53
I remember something on here about protesting but fans expressed their opionion by saying that was kopite behaviour. One guy even said he'd pay double to see the blues play.
Talk of redevelopment or a new ground will incur a rise in prices to pay for it how would fans feel then. It's a great idea to redevelop the old lady rather than a move but that may have to happen.
Would we as fans be able to afford increases as most have kids to bring and take a kopite stance or take the mentality that some would pay double to watch the blues (not this season).
68 Posted 04/02/2016 at 17:25:47
Surely a property pivotal to making redevelopment possible would be snapped up by the club immediately if they were indeed taking this option seriously? And for £65k not even the cost of one week's wages for Gareth Barry! The others are going for £59k and £50k.
Why aren't the club buying them? It's not like they can't afford to. By renting them out until redevelopment commenced they could even earn the club a bit of money (for once). If they'd started buying 20 years ago...
Maybe this is a way the fans could get involved? Set up a company (I'm no expert here!) to buy houses when they become available, rent them out in the meantime and earn a return on investment and when the club wants to buy them they can have them at market rate?
69 Posted 04/02/2016 at 17:31:15
70 Posted 04/02/2016 at 17:37:11
One reason that they might not be buying is that they may have seen how LFC acquired several whole streets via a CPO process.... and/or this is only very early in their deliberations for redevelopment.
I agree about the fans acquiring the houses.... perhaps Tony I'Anson or the Everton Trust people might have a view. Got to admit I did look at a property there that was only £40k quite recently, thinking similar.
71 Posted 04/02/2016 at 17:41:03
72 Posted 04/02/2016 at 19:36:17
73 Posted 04/02/2016 at 20:20:30
74 Posted 04/02/2016 at 21:47:52
Tbh I am not against moving per se. However, I am seriously against moving to ANYTHING/ANYWHERE.
I voted for the Kings Dock as I believed it was a fitting and ambitious scheme, and by seizing a central, very high profile site also too good to miss in terms of transport and prestige etc..... but even that was with a tinge of reluctance, as I knew what could be done at GP, and value it's almost talismanic quality.
Kirkby was a whole different thing..... On every level. I was at the shareholders meeting when Wyness first outlined the proposals.... and there were already complete false claims in abundance. Then of course we had the hard sell, which set various other alarms going for me.
Similarly WHP (to a lesser extent). First of all, there seemed no real substance to the announcement. ... no solid proposals to judge, even over yr after the initial announcement..... and other reservations began to grow as details about a basic low quality design, and non-existent funding vehicles emerged.
I've had various meetings with the club over the yrs, and it was only too apparent that they hadn't fully explored the redevelopment option...... and I simply couldn't understand this. The default starting position for any club wishing to address stadium requirements is: what can we achieve at our current site? That is the benchmark against which all other options need to be measured. Of course the onus is firmly on the club to assess this option and all the technicalities and pitfalls, whereas a relocation may be prompted and driven by an outside developer...... and it's as if EFC have been waiting for this to drop out of the sky with no stomach for the task of redevelopment. On each occasion they've failed to deliver with this almost passive approach.
Only a few yrs ago LFC's directors completely denied that redevelopment was viable or desirable..... Yet, a change of owners viewed things entirely differently, and lo and behold that giant Edifice is towering over us at an ever increasing rate. What would be better than to have a face-off with an almost equally towering structure on our side of the Park, with one end bigger than the kop and a massive modern Bullens too? All with so much tradition a d history preserved, tried and tested transport and simple continuity....and all within a football quarter concept that might also yield further value-adding economies and funding opportunities. How many more boxes need to be ticked?
75 Posted 04/02/2016 at 21:49:28
76 Posted 04/02/2016 at 21:56:13
77 Posted 04/02/2016 at 21:58:47
78 Posted 04/02/2016 at 22:23:31
What have you read that says redevelopment wouldn't be practical?
I think I've read everything written on this subject (official and otherwise) and I haven't read a single doc that has shown it not be practical. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of clubs (particularly the bigger ones) have chosen redevelopment, tends to refute this argument even further.
79 Posted 04/02/2016 at 22:43:52
Your moral-conscience is commendable, but perhaps slightly misplaced..... or even inconsistent.
EFC have already knocked down approx 100 properties around GP since they've been there....... did you protest then also? Was the effect so damaging on the local community? The club did it to help create the finest stadium in the country. One fit for our ambitions and to even merit automatic inclusion as a world cup venue. No-one now laments the loss of the houses at Gwladys St or Goodison Ave. There was no outcry or protest. They club is after all a major local, national and international institution who have been there for far longer than any resident of the area, who've all chosen to live on top of a football stadium, or to buy with the hope of a handsome profit.
Secondly, there was a report published recently outlining the serious decline of various areas after a football club had left.... I think it was posted on TW too. High streets practically shutting down due to lost matchday and other related footfall. How community-spirited would it be for us to inflict the same on Walton.....? For the sake of a handful of houses that may get cleared anyway?
Wherever we go may lead to someone being displaced, or others objecting.... if anything staying put, is often the path of least resistance.
80 Posted 04/02/2016 at 23:19:08
When the Kings Dock Scheme was put together something over 50% of the cost was covered by grant funding.
Now most of that grant funding has gone and there are minimal incentives to build on a greenfield site so the lower cost option obviously is redevelopment of the existing.
In Everton's case it is even more compelling, the history, the world cup semifinal, The Archie Leach structure and as Tom says the football quarter possibilities.
I have a feeling it was Green and Earle driving the new stadium and refusal to consider redeveloping GP so hopefully the new owners will have more open minds.
81 Posted 05/02/2016 at 07:28:32
I am all for a new stadium, in Liverpool (preferably the City Centre) if the finance was in place, but if Everton did decide to redevelop, surely this would then be a new stadium with just the sentiment attached?
It may still be called Goodison Park but the Grand Old Lady etc would surely disappear with the loss of the obstructed views, cramped legroom, wooden seats and crap refreshment and toilet facilities.
For the purists amongst you that want to keep Goodison Park are they wanting to keep the name Goodison Park for a new stadium built on its approximate footprint to where it is now as that is what redevelopment would mean, do we just want the posts removed?
To me re routing Walton Lane through Breck Road, Arkles Lane back onto Priory Road would allow us to move Park End down by 100 metres but would virtually mean a new stadium? So would this be redevelopment or new build?
I also picked up on another thread about where do we go whilst this is happening? As well as ST holders a lot of people will miss games due to works taking place and whilst this is the price of development, how is moving current seat holders prioritised?
For me, if everything was in place, it would be a new state-of-the-art stadium in the city centre, showcasing our club not only to the football world but also to non-football visitors to the city.
Then I woke up......
82 Posted 05/02/2016 at 07:48:24
I should have looked before asking...
I would prefer a one tier personally just to dwarf the Anfield kop, but ratio will make it a two tiered stand with the cost as deciding factor. And I'm ok with that.
Just hope this plan really moves forward. Or a great new stadium is suggested. But with the current board I'm afraid we will always end up with a Kirkby-like stadium.
83 Posted 05/02/2016 at 08:10:23
How much would it cost (roughly) to replace the roof on the 3 stands with posts?
84 Posted 05/02/2016 at 08:57:41
86 Posted 05/02/2016 at 14:47:53
Can't see us ever getting another site in town or the cash to build, this is, in my opinion, the next best thing
87 Posted 05/02/2016 at 15:51:11
88 Posted 05/02/2016 at 15:53:03
89 Posted 05/02/2016 at 16:44:31
90 Posted 05/02/2016 at 16:49:30
He later regurgitated it and claimed it was done in March 2000 as part of the Kings Dock vote
Plus there's loads of others available on the web
Ralph, this one shows some redevelopment over the previous years
91 Posted 06/02/2016 at 09:35:54
92 Posted 07/02/2016 at 09:44:05
BTW, I guess you mean 1998, not 1988.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.