Since 2012, Liverpool has been placed by Unesco on the “danger list” with the threat of removal as a World Heritage Site. Should Everton plan on not being constrained by the threat of the city losing that status?
How long have Unesco been threatening to remove World Heritage Site status from the Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City?
The answer is almost half the time we’ve “enjoyed” the status. Granted in 2004, it “reflects the role of Liverpool as the supreme example of a commercial port at the time of Britain’s greatest global influence.” Yet, despite this glowing and accurate reference, much of the river-facing site (predominantly Liverpool Waters) remains derelict and, since 2012, we’ve been placed by the issuing body (Unesco) on the “danger list” with the threat of removal.
It’s clear to anyone who has lived, worked, have family connections, or have visited the City of Liverpool, how important the River Mersey, the docks, the commercial district and other historic areas of the city centre are – not only to the City of Liverpool today, but historically our nation, our former Empire, the industrial revolution, and the development of global trade.
It is there for all to see, even in its haphazardly partially redeveloped, partially restored, partially still abandoned state. Beyond that, there are huge expanses that are currently not visible or accessible to the public. For many years, most of the dock area has been largely sealed off. Hidden behind a Grade II listed wall, privately owned and – with the exception of the Albert Dock, Pier Head and Princess Dock – largely derelict.
As a result of our World Heritage Site status, it can be argued that the regeneration and economic development of the City and the region is less than it should have been.
The reasons for that are numerous yet significant, a perfect storm of private ownership, indecisive local authorities, a disinterested national Government, an absence of interested developers, a reluctant freeholder... and yes, the limiting factors of World Heritage Site status. Apparent from all is the ineffective role of each of the stakeholders, all with predominantly narrow self-interest apparently over-riding mutual benefit, and the greater good.
The singular missing component to the equation is leadership and common purpose. It should be possible to marry regeneration, redevelopment, public and private interests, and the protection and enhancement of heritage – even through the eyes of a distant global regulator (Unesco) symbiotically, each benefiting from – and recognising the benefit to – each other.
Looking at the correspondence between parties since 2012, the tone in both Unesco’s reports and the counters by the principals of the heritage site, demonstrate over the years, game playing and increasing mistrust.
Objective inspection of the Unesco report points to their disapproval of the behaviour of both Liverpool City Council and Peel Holdings as owners of Liverpool Waters. There’s clearly dismay from Unesco as to the ability to receive timely and relevant information in line with previous commitments. Their conclusion is that such does not allow Unesco to make the assessments it believes it is required to do.
As a result, we end up not with a win-win situation (enhanced heritage and development) but a lose-lose scenario where development is hindered by doubt and poor decision-making, while heritage remains locked away, largely a relic in a storeroom rather than a living breathing example of what our city provided and enhanced the world.
We are a city historically renowned for straight talking, for having an opinion (rightly or wrongly), and for sticking by it. Humour, integrity, fearlessness, a willingness to go against the flow — these are all recognised traits of our people – “scousers” throughout the world.
Therefore, how can it be that we can be so indecisive about the future of our greatest historical asset – the waterfront and everything that has, does and will flow from that?
I’m an Evertonian and, as such, have my own narrow interest over and beyond the city of my birth. From that narrow perspective, I see a situation that currently reduces the potential impact for the city — and most importantly the club – of building a new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.
Bramley-Moore Dock is at the extreme north end of Liverpool Waters and is actually in the buffer zone rather than the actual World Heritage Site. Yet it now appears from initial media reporting to be the principal cause of the potential removal of World Heritage Site status.
Albeit well known locally among Blues and many others globally for more than 18 months – and, I must add, by Unesco themselves from their previous and continued engagement with Everton Football Club – formal acknowledgement earlier this year of the proposed development of a new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock seems to have caught them somewhat off-guard. They, of course, will point to a failure of communication and due process by the City concerning the site's Outstanding Universal Value (OUV):
The headlines from the BBC, largely driven by the need for clicks, focuses on the potential impact of the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock:
As responsible citizens and with a strong city/community consciousness, I’m sure the Board of Everton FC take into account the implications of Unesco’s views and, as a result, we the club modify our behaviour, our proposals and response with consideration for all parties – in this case the Liverpool City Council, Peel Holdings, and Unesco. Our (Everton’s) thought process seems to be one of compliance, to fit in with the greater needs of the community, the City and the regulator (Unesco). Therefore, it is natural to assume that compromises regarding the new stadium have been made to satisfy the wider needs of all, rather than our own narrower interests.
All of which is fine if it (i) assures planning permission for the stadium; (ii) produces a stadium appropriate for our needs; and (iii) generates recognition and approval from Unesco, Liverpool City Council, and Peel Holdings, the owners of Liverpool Waters. As such, the compromise should not only produce an appropriate stadium but also produce benefits to the club by recognition of Bramley-Moore Dock enhancing the heritage of the city waterfront.
Commitment to World Heritage Site status?
That assumes both Liverpool City Council and Peel remain committed to retaining the World Heritage Site status.
But what if either the City or Peel Holdings believe that World Heritage Site status is no longer (if it ever was?) beneficial to their own narrow interests? What if the calculation is that not having such status is actually more rewarding? Are we (Everton Football Club) making unnecessary concessions to something which may not exist beyond the date we submit our planning application?
Clearly from a planning and redevelopment point of view, the absence of Unesco and WHS status makes development easier for incoming investors, makes Peel’s land instantly more valuable, and from the LCC’s point of view, brings forward the economic benefits of speedier development.
What does that mean for Everton? Assuming we have made compromises and concessions on design, almost certainly cost and capacity, to meet heritage concerns, are these concessions indeed necessary?
The timing is tricky, of course; our planning application (which can be modified) should – according to the proposed timetable – be made before Unesco reach a decision (likely in 12 months).
Should we plan on not being constrained by World Heritage Site status? Do we stand the risk of being seen as the reason for losing such status without the potential benefits arising for LCC and Peel Holdings? Do we think it wise or do we have the courage to take the leading role if we believe it to be in our best interests?
As the title suggests, it’s time for everyone – Unesco, LCC, Peel and Everton – to be adults in the room. It’s time for honesty in terms of intent and interests and to recognise that, although the interests of each are different, they can be beneficial to all. It’s equally important to recognise, if not, a parting of the ways between Unesco Liverpool city is beneficial too.
To be fair, the club will argue (perhaps with some justification) they knew of the timing of the latest Unesco report, and that the decision not to publish images beforehand, and the timing of the second phase public consultation, was planned accordingly.
However, given where we are and Unesco’s public response, leadership is required from all parties – and particularly Everton – for whom the consequences of the next few months – and, in particular, the relationship with UNESCO and other heritage organisations – are hugely important.
The call for leadership is of course, a common and frequent theme on my writings about the club.
The next few months are critical for our future and require our owner, our board and executive team to pass the challenges with flying colours. They can do so with a clear strategy and strength of corporate character. The time for obfuscation from all parties is over.
All must be clear as to their own objectives and requirements, and communicate them openly and honestly, otherwise we risk a conclusion that does not meet the requirements of any party. For Everton that’s a huge risk.
Reader Comments (129)
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 29/06/2019 at 16:08:29
The Royal Liver Building was created upon a derelict dock. The car park underneath the Strand has parts of ancient dock walls visible. Any of these things can be done to the Bramley-Moore Dock to show its history, which at the moment is hidden under 60 ft of dirty water.
Regeneration of the North Shore is something that is required... and has been for a long time. NSNO
2 Posted 29/06/2019 at 16:12:29
I hope Everton have ‘gamed' this situation out. It was obvious to all it would be an issue; however, a strong yet flexible approach from the club should be able to take us forward. Everton should be bold and lead, welcome Unesco, and seek to ‘bring them with us'. However, they should make it clear that ultimately they know the development is clearly worth more to the city than continued World Heritage Site status.
If the club fail to lead here, you only see delays and the club timidly compromising to the point it hurts the development. It's a thread running throughout this process: are Everton trying to be all-inclusive to ensure the development happens, yet leave us with an unsatisfactory product?
I think Everton should and would benefit from being bolder here. Thoughts?
3 Posted 29/06/2019 at 16:21:11
On this occasion, even if it is not their natural instinct to be bold, they must be.
4 Posted 29/06/2019 at 16:52:01
5 Posted 29/06/2019 at 17:40:32
There's a lot of history along the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey. This won't damage what exists close to Bramley-Moore Dock or elsewhere on the Mersey.
And “architecture” develops, moves on, doesn't stagnate. The old coexists with the new. This is in the buffer zone. And next to that United Utilities facility for god's sake. The wall will still be there, as will the gate towers and hydraulic tower.
The new merged with the old. Reminds me of Coop's Shot Tower in Melbourne – a superb, modern, conical glass structure built round an old lead shot tower built 1889.
7 Posted 29/06/2019 at 17:52:00
Personally I'm not interested if Unesco disown us tomorrow. The city is expanding rapidly, try to book a hotel room for next Saturday night. You will struggle.
8 Posted 29/06/2019 at 17:53:37
These circumstances regarding WHS status are remarkably reminiscent of Liverpool City's indolence when EU Objective One was granted (if that is the word).
At that time, Liverpool was recognised as being in need of financial support incentives in order to modernise and redevelop. It spectacularly failed to achieve it's desired outcomes within the allotted time frame.
Liverpool became the very first area to have Objective One granted for a second time. This can be viewed from two stances:
1) The City's needs were so extensive that a second period was entirely necessary to drive things forward; or
2) The City's uptake of funding was so shambolic and minimal that it hadn't even started by the time that the period was coming to an end.
Personally, I saw things from the second viewpoint, though even then with some sympathy.
Liverpool as a city, certainly at that time, had a reputation (rightly or wrongly) for being "a bloody awkward partner to work with". I became aware of this reputation via a number of external sources during the middle of that first period, sources not connected to each other.
Some potential partners simply packed up and walked away in sheer frustration at lack of progress and some from frustration at the continual failure or reluctance to co-operate on behalf of local partners (the City Council being a prime example of both sources of frustration).
Certain aspects of Objective One funding could attract 90% matched funding. So in broad terms, for a commitment of (say) £10M (by means of goods, services and £££) a project valuing at £100M could be undertaken.
I have no real connection nor familiarity with Unesco's World Heritage Site status, other than that it sounds really nice. A compliment to our important past. However, if what WHS truly means is just another layer of bureaucratic restrictions then it's far worse than useless, it's yet another millstone to hang around the city's (figurative) neck.
By contrast, if what WHS brings is access substantial financial input and expertise then where is it in EFC's plans? Or put another way, where is the arm around the shoulder that ensures that EFC's plans are carried out in accordance with best interests and done so successfully in ALL respects (including expenditure and completion date).
From what this "Ordinary Joe" can see so far, WHS is all veiled threat of restriction and bugger all assistance. Indeed, is there even a "WHS Masterplan"?
Heritage is all well and good but a thriving present & future is more important still.
9 Posted 29/06/2019 at 18:12:07
The real heritage like the Pier Head and the Albert Dock will in this modern era be well protected Grade listed status and all that. I don't know if the wall and dock wall is protected it should be. But by and large the area is derelict. A long way from the days like when my dad was a docker all away along up to Seaforth.
Our city constantly downsizes developments due to garbage like this. What really annoys me is all the substandard developments that seem to get done anyway! The Pier Head Ferry Terminal. Lime Street (with a Lidl, welcome to Liverpool). Even some of the Princes Dock buildings. There's some bad architecture along the waterfront.
Everton will also bow down to some demands or other rather than doing what's best for us.
10 Posted 29/06/2019 at 18:15:01
It is obvious to many of us that conservation and imaginative development should go hand-in-hand, for the benefit of everyone. This is the position of the City Council and other bodies, such as the Merseyside Civic Society who have published a White Paper on the subject.
As with developments such as the Titanic Hotel, the Albert Dock and the conservation of the Old Dock beneath Liverpool One, creative compromise is necessary. Good-will, respect and expertise are required, but the relationship with UNESCO's representatives is proving to be a difficult one. They don't seem to understand the city, or even like it very much. I remember the Central Docks area as the most 'urban' environment I have ever known, but it sometimes seems that UNESCO want to create a new type of suburban theme park - the exact opposite of what it used to be. Where is the 'authenticity' in that? Things are coming to a head.....
This area was once Liverpool's 'Window on the World', noisy, exciting, teeming with local people and visitors from around the world, and it could be that once again.
11 Posted 29/06/2019 at 18:19:59
12 Posted 29/06/2019 at 18:28:51
The maps on the UNESCO site clearly show Bramley-Moore to be outside the boundary. Nelson Dock is within the boundary. Given that both docks form part of the Northern Dock Masterplan (yet to be published) is that the distinction?
13 Posted 29/06/2019 at 18:49:56
The loss of historic water space within the WHS is undoubtedly an issue, but it is up to Everton to offer things in mitigation. For example, they seem to have accepted keeping the water channel open through to the North Docks, offered a full restoration of the impressive hydraulic tower, and protection of the historic dock walls beneath the stadium [with or without any viewing access]. All this suggests that there have been constructive negotiations, but no doubt we'll all find out before too long.
14 Posted 29/06/2019 at 19:23:32
15 Posted 29/06/2019 at 19:55:50
16 Posted 29/06/2019 at 20:00:35
17 Posted 29/06/2019 at 20:11:38
I am obviously an Evertonian but I also love MY city and if we lose Unesco World Heritage Site recognition, so be it.
Sometimes, the people that live in the city need to be listened to... We need this part of OUR city improved.
18 Posted 29/06/2019 at 20:17:54
We are much more of a city than the fantastic Beatles.
Shit I want this stadium so much and think it will happen.
But looking at Liverpool One, if that type of development is great, then god help us. Link with our past.
But the jobs? Yeah, more jobs on close-to-minimum wage. In the end, most developments can be that exploitation but maybe our club had a conscience?
Step forward? Pray do and we become a moral club like Barca try to be. I hope so....
19 Posted 29/06/2019 at 20:27:51
Yet, the Beatles are far more important to the world than dock buildings left derelict because they are not needed anymore. The imitation Cavern masquerading as the original is an insult to the music heritage of Liverpool.
20 Posted 29/06/2019 at 20:41:15
We are in no position as a city to piss about with potential investments, people's livelihoods, and redevelopment of derelict land a stone's throw from the city centre. This week, it was announced that Liverpool would soon see the reintroduction of a direct train to Scotland. Let that sink in.
HS2 is passing us by, Channel 4 chose Leeds... and the Commonwealth Games chose Birmingham.
The last thing this city needs is bureaucratic barriers to prosperity.
21 Posted 29/06/2019 at 21:00:07
Or even better, our city is beyond crap tourist jobs and people from Crocky etc have proper jobs.
How to do that?
22 Posted 29/06/2019 at 21:12:29
I think it would be better to show the world what our docks are like now, and then again after the work starts making progress, because whatever this title is worth, it's going to be worth a thousand times more to our city once the work begins to take real shape. See Laurie's links on the other Bramley-Moore Dock thread for better details!
23 Posted 29/06/2019 at 21:18:50
Same with students, like them or loath them, they have definitely played a big part in Liverpool's renaissance over the last 15/20 years.
24 Posted 29/06/2019 at 21:29:22
25 Posted 29/06/2019 at 21:40:13
26 Posted 29/06/2019 at 21:53:34
Paul, an illuminating article. History? It baffles and amazes me. Belfast has built a tourist industry out of the Titanic. I believe that I am the only man in Belfast who finds this really weird. Let's move on.
27 Posted 29/06/2019 at 22:00:43
28 Posted 29/06/2019 at 22:07:59
When Notre Dame burnt down, more than a billion pounds was raised in days to rebuild the monument of oppression whilst children on this planet are starving to death and dying of curable diseases. Just think about that for a second...
Bollocks to Unesco!!!
29 Posted 29/06/2019 at 23:39:48
30 Posted 29/06/2019 at 23:47:02
31 Posted 30/06/2019 at 00:17:27
Ludvig van Beethoven's 5th in C minor is probably still the most recognised and reproduced piece of music in history and that was written during the first decade of the 19th century. Coming up to 120 years ago now.
Oh and anyone know who the fuck Tutankhamun is?
Bit of a silly one, that, Dermot!
32 Posted 30/06/2019 at 00:25:54
33 Posted 30/06/2019 at 00:36:10
34 Posted 30/06/2019 at 01:41:37
And if the LCC want to get on their high horse I'd advise tbem to look at Their role over the last 70 plus years. They destroyed more buildings than Hitler's bombers and erected more carbunkles the HRH Charles could shake a stick at.
Peel own the whole lot, we lease (subject to planning permission and finaince etc) the end bit next to the sewage farm that no big ticket developer would want anyway.
Its Peel's and up to a point LCC's problem not ours.
I'd say without prejudice, that Peel, LCC, WH and the horse they rode in on can all do one.
35 Posted 30/06/2019 at 04:18:53
36 Posted 30/06/2019 at 06:31:05
Nobody gave a flying fook about the area, it's sat collecting dust for decades, now someone is redeveloping it's an issue? Seriously, who's going to miss the place? Hardly the Giza Pyramids is it?
Move on and upwards, what do Unesco do apart from block development anyway?
37 Posted 30/06/2019 at 06:59:44
38 Posted 30/06/2019 at 07:13:07
They broke up 51 years ago.
39 Posted 30/06/2019 at 08:17:05
40 Posted 30/06/2019 at 08:50:23
41 Posted 30/06/2019 at 09:00:42
42 Posted 30/06/2019 at 09:24:54
Im not sure why anyone would care about losing it at the moment.
43 Posted 30/06/2019 at 09:25:37
Spot on and very diplomatically put
The ex coal dock is a complete eyesore and always was
If UNESCO want to pay billions to “keep in character” then ok if not shut up
I cant believe the millions of tourists we get each year come because were “approved” I doubt even one know we are
Apart from building a new ground and sll it will attract adjacent to it the only alternative is to use it as a nuclear test site
Yet again a load of arseholes sitting in offices millions of miles away telling us whats best for the city.
They really havent a clue
By the way I would bet anything you like the City generates more from the Beatles than any WHS and will do until were all gone and buried
44 Posted 30/06/2019 at 09:50:09
They wanted the Pier Head to be a World Heritage Site so that they could have that status – and then to suit them they built monstrosities around the Buildings. They want it every way.
I love Liverpool but the "greatest City in the weaaarrld" ... don't know... We have so-called Leaders and Planners who are merely office assistants and, in some cases, out to promote their own stature.
Up The Blues.
45 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:05:32
They should have lost The WHS when they knocked down Cardinal Godfrey!!!!
46 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:07:09
47 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:08:29
48 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:09:56
Dermot, The Beatles will mean nothing in 20 years? Thanks for the tip, any more news from the stables?
And thanks for the words of support, say it like you mean, I say.
49 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:10:52
Up The Blues, Rave On Ma Joad – thanks for the memory, John. Float on a silver cloud, man.
50 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:21:09
Free theatre, free circus, is a brilliant description of the time I also spent at Godfrey, George, plus we also had a great footy team, so what more could any kid want!!
51 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:21:27
52 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:22:01
"Unesco's mission is to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information. The Organization focuses, in particular, on two global priorities: Africa. Gender equality."
So fuck them right off and see what Peel think.
53 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:23:46
What about "In our Blue and White Palace" (Yellow Submarine tune)?
Oh that magic feeling... nowhere to go... one sweet dream... one day we'll be away from here... wipe away that tear and step on the gas.
Absolutley love them.
54 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:35:39
I think that about sums up why this mob should be totally ignored and not considered when we build a footy ground. They don't live in the real world.
George, I'm still trying to come down from where you were! But apart from that, just looking at the scars I have on my fingers and hands from getting the “stick” from Godfrey! The Christian Brothers were a truly hard bunch!
55 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:37:27
We were only 12 so it was highly unlikely... but this American boy-mountain, who had joined us after term started, fancied his chances. Showing proper technique and the power of a full-grown athlete, he launched this fucking discus clean over the wall.
Nobody said a word for about 20 seconds...
56 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:41:21
57 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:42:23
They often come for business and are so impressed/surprised they come back for a weekend break.
WHS is an 'achievement' for local politicians, but I'm not convinced it has a material effect on the city.
Paul's right; we need to be ready to argue our case, regardless of the way this goes.
58 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:43:30
In them days, we would go to see Everton, Everton Reserves, Liverpool (with Peter Walsh and Lenny Mc Clusky)... times have changed.
Darren and John and gang, how lucky we were to go to that madhouse – a real education in the widest terms.
Remember Liptrot very well.
Lovely to read so many Cardinal Godfrey Boys on TW.
59 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:49:06
As Mike (#42) says, nobody will care if Liverpool lose the WHS title, and let's be honest, I bet more than half the population of Liverpool don't even know we've got such a title.
The first thing all these cruise liners see as they come up the Mersey is some derelict docklands, with one or two filled with scrap metal, and not one person would know which one is Bramley-Moore Dock. The only way it is recognisable to us is the hydraulic tower, which will remain when we build the new stadium, along with the surrounding walls at the entrance on the dock road.
So let's get this built. Let our shiny new stadium, along with new hotels, new housing, and whatever else is planned for the area, be the first thing cruise liners see as they move slowly up the River Mersey.
Paul Kelly #36. Great post by the way. My words exactly.
60 Posted 30/06/2019 at 10:49:10
Lippy was the effeminate French teacher who just loved to batter you with the stick.
We won all the volleyball titles with George but, when he left, it went to shit. I think we spent more time in the garden bit where we practised putting up tents for the “Lourdes Trip” getting the ball back at lunchtime than putting up tents.
If you kicked a volleyball, you did 20 press-ups!
Fit as fuck! Even now!!!
61 Posted 30/06/2019 at 11:24:11
62 Posted 30/06/2019 at 11:30:37
I had footy on the brain in my childhood years, they wouldn't let me play volleyball because I always used to try and head it, but what great memories, of the theatre and the circus, and a life that was full of fun and laughter, especially when we used to go down the Lanny in the summer, and not be bothered by anyone, because this part of the city has been derelict forever!
63 Posted 30/06/2019 at 11:31:39
However, the point is that The Planners – or whatever you want to call them – can do what they want and play with "status" and change their policies and plans to suit themselves.
The constant need for "world class" and "the best in the world" in Liverpool is – in my opinion – a dreadful inferiority complex.
Co-incidentally, I have never read that the Liver Building was considered a monstrosity. But although I have read a great deal I haven't read everything – but accept that I am an opinionated so and so.
Up The Liver Building!
64 Posted 30/06/2019 at 11:36:43
65 Posted 30/06/2019 at 11:45:26
Look at how much investment went into Melbourne Docks, (Laurie H, has put it on the other thread) and read what Peel Holdings have had to say about Everton going to Bramley-Moore Dock, and how it's going to take years off their long-term plans.
The stadium is massive for us Evertonians but the investment on the stadium will be chicken-feed when you consider how much investment this whole project is going to bring in, and I'm sure that's the real reason Moshiri chose this as his base.
66 Posted 30/06/2019 at 11:52:01
67 Posted 30/06/2019 at 11:53:40
68 Posted 30/06/2019 at 11:57:21
Incidentally the Royal Liver Building is now open for public tours and well worth a visit (don't go when it's raining).
Up the Liver Buildings indeed.
69 Posted 30/06/2019 at 12:23:36
Bullman was a hard case indeed. He had his nose broken and it was like a wartime anti-submarine zig-zag pattern- went 20 ways.
Worst one was Brother Ben, he never asked you to hold out your hand to get the stick, he just cornered you and belted 7 bells of shit out of you.
Moran loved me and made me work the tuck shop or drinks stall at lunchtime. Ate and drank free for 5 years!
70 Posted 30/06/2019 at 12:29:42
Interesting that so many of the lads on here went to Cardinal Godfrey – as some have mentioned the Beatles, I wonder if any of you guys (like McCartney and Harrison) are Liobians, as I am?
71 Posted 30/06/2019 at 12:36:31
72 Posted 30/06/2019 at 12:58:25
Free theatre and free circus eh Tony, you robbin' little fecker, used to tell your mother it was a nicker everytime you went, from now on I'll call you “Now, rob your mam!”
73 Posted 30/06/2019 at 13:14:17
74 Posted 30/06/2019 at 13:14:57
Tony @62: I too couldn't resist heading volleyballs. At Ellergreen, our metalwork teacher encouraged us to continue doing some metalwork into the 6th form, in the lunch hour, unaccompanied because we were very responsible 6th formers. But the light was switched on by a pull-string (like in a bathroom), and the height of it was perfect for heading practice.
Anyway, sod Unesco.
75 Posted 30/06/2019 at 13:18:49
76 Posted 30/06/2019 at 13:38:46
I can just imagine you playing rugby union as well, in fact Id have paid more than a nicker to watch that!
77 Posted 30/06/2019 at 15:35:54
Could well have been a young offenders place as we had some real divies.
Great school though, happy days apart from that prick Tommy Smith forced to come in and give us a talk about how well he'd done at the RS! Couple of lads in 6th year told him they were going to break his leg and we never seen him again.
Big headed prick and actually got better looking as he got older.
78 Posted 30/06/2019 at 15:49:51
“They wouldn't let me play volleyball because I always used to try and head it,”
That cracked me up. Take a bow Tony Abraham's.
P.S. Dave don't let him anywhere near a golf course.
Great to see you back on blob, George McKane – long may it continue.
79 Posted 30/06/2019 at 15:56:43
Whilst it's always nice to see flashes of history such as buildings from yesteryear, we must realise that a lot of the big cities in the world are always looking to the future, sentiment often goes on the back burner.
Rather than looking at derelict land and unoccupied buildings, I'd rather see the tobacco factory renovated into beautiful accommodation for guests of the city but more importantly – fans visiting Bramley-Moore Dock, than watch it rot because I believe it may be a listed building saying it can't be knocked down. (Maybe wrong?)
Liverpool was based on innovation, hard graft and a defiance to never be second-best to anyone; now we are obsessed with stagnation because we are scared to let go of the past.
80 Posted 30/06/2019 at 16:54:34
81 Posted 30/06/2019 at 18:33:13
82 Posted 30/06/2019 at 19:01:00
83 Posted 30/06/2019 at 19:21:39
84 Posted 30/06/2019 at 19:21:49
Back tomorrow talking shit... that has more thought!
85 Posted 30/06/2019 at 19:23:59
Please text to 07966814476
[responded: Set to Reader - MK]
86 Posted 30/06/2019 at 19:27:39
Well he DID have some neck beforehand!
87 Posted 30/06/2019 at 19:33:20
88 Posted 30/06/2019 at 21:16:27
89 Posted 30/06/2019 at 21:43:40
They are going to retain the dock wall and gates so it will be interesting to see how they plan to disperse the fans back on to the road after the match.
90 Posted 30/06/2019 at 21:59:36
91 Posted 30/06/2019 at 22:01:37
Dermot at 21 - Yeah right
Just had friends over from Germany who specifically wanted to go to Liverpool (I live in Lytham now) because of the Beatles. And they weren't even born when they broke up.
I hope the new ground is Killer-Diller !
92 Posted 01/07/2019 at 04:29:43
I was there from around 1974 – 79 and remember Brothers O'Brien and McGovern who were slightly unhinged at times and well known for throwing that solid black plastic chalk duster at you in you were caught daydreaming in class of Big Bob Latch scoring a hat-trick on the forthcoming Saturday. Father Carey was the Headmaster was quite passive but caned your palms like a demon!
Any old boys remember the crazy art teacher Mr Metcalfe? He once jumped off a chair to cane one of my school mates (Class 5R!!)
Best days of your life eh??!!
93 Posted 01/07/2019 at 10:08:31
94 Posted 01/07/2019 at 13:28:49
Last lesson Wednesday, in bounces Metcalfe, who surprisingly kept his composure for such a lunatic, and this was my first real introduction to a proper kangaroo court.
Pure free theatre (Dave) but a sad ending, because three of my kirkdale mates were expelled, when one kid who could have walked them out of it panicked, and that was the end of them.
Godfrey was a cracking school though, and although I made a load more mates when we amalgamated into Nugent, I honestly think that was the end of my proper education, at thirteen years of age, which looking back now is very sad.
95 Posted 01/07/2019 at 14:51:54
On the question of the UNESCO status, it's a double-edged sword. I'm all in favour of preserving historical sites which might otherwise fall into neglect and decay, or simply be bulldozed over by developers. However, such protection as a UNESCO listing may offer, it must be balanced by the benefits (or disadvantages) such status brings to the very community and inhabitants of the site.
It can cut both ways. A UNESCO listing flags up a location and tourism and development floods in, benefiting (or destroying!) the local economy. Or so restrictive is UNESCO's criteria that a site is prevented from being developed and built around and the local community stagnates and whithers.
There are more than a 1000 UNESCO listed sites worldwide and a quick Google search reveals being listed can be hugely detrimental to the community 'awarded' the badge.
An Italian writer Marco dEramo is particularly vocal about the issue, saying UNESCO preserves buildings but allows the communities around them to be destroyed, often by tourism. He coins a nice phrase for it - 'Unesco-cide.
The city of Liverpool potentially falls into the second category.
As the Esk writes, it COULD be a win-win situation (enhanced heritage and development), but instead we are teetering towards a lose-lose scenario where "development is hindered by doubt and poor decision-making, while heritage remains locked away, largely a relic in a storeroom rather than a living breathing example of what our city provided and enhanced the world."
Personally, I think what has been achieved around Albert Dock with its many cultural attractions and riverside walkways is very tasteful and more than makes a nod to the city's rich history and inheritance.
The entire city and its inhabitants could further benefit if that development was further extended, opening up an extensive walkway/cycle path atop the very walls and alongside the very docks UNESCO wishes to protect and preserve, but which are not open to public access.
To achieve that, as again the Esk points out, all the shareholders need to compromise. If UNESCO insist all or part of the defunct docks to BMD (and beyond) can NOT be filled in, developed or built upon in any way, shape or form, then the city, its political leaders and the electorate itself, HAVE to question if the World Heritage Listing 'benefits' come at too great a cost and acts as a brake on the city's growth.
As an aside here, I have to give a nod to Tom Hughes (always worth a read on the stadium issue) who continues to question why Everton has gone 'all in' on (the tight, restricted) BMD site when, for example, there are other larger docks already filled in (Trafalgar Dock?) closer to the city centre.
This ties in with the 'leadership' question the Esk asks. Now you would think that Everton is the smallest player sat around the table, alongside the city council, Peel the developers and UNESCO, so how could the club be expected to 'lead' the project?
Maybe - just maybe - the club has a stronger hand (albeit with very few chips to play with!) and is a key 'enabler' more than others sat around the table. Neither Peel nor the city council have been able to 'kick start' the proposed docklands development project for 10 years now.
Pushing ahead with (hopefully!) a world class build of a new Everton stadium at BMD helps all parties to 'bookend' the waterfront so they can front and back build from the likes of Albert Dock. (See Laurie's excellent example in Melbourne).
The corporate world and the boardrooms of the rich and powerful is not one I move in. But I'm quite sure there is much, much more at play behind the scenes than the 'simple' stadium relocation of Everton Football Club.
96 Posted 01/07/2019 at 17:32:51
I am as excited as anyone at the prospect of a smart new stadium, but have several reservations regarding Bramley-Moore Dock; from what I have seen so far, and more pertinently at the recent presentation, I think there are several issues, concerns and questions.
I think Dan Meis first mentioned designing a new stadium for Everton in December 2014. He was obviously commissioned at some point before this (perhaps because of his experience in designing stadiums in sensitive areas and/or on waterfront sites). The current site was secured I think in 2016, again presumably after initial site studies were carried out well prior to that, following some form of site appraisal and selection process. So we are quite a long way down the line by any stadium design and planning process yardstick. Yet some fundamentals still appear to be unknowns.
At our last meeting, Dave Kelly proposed arranging a stadium-specific meeting to discuss all of the issues. Apologies in advance as I have no time to edit, so it's a bit wordy. I may well have missed some key points, or misinterpreted others, but here is how I see things thus far:
• Cost: The project costs have grown to £600m from a previous figure of £500m. What has caused this increase? Can we have a breakdown of these costs? What are the full site-prep and/or heritage-led costs? A figure of £30-40m was mentioned just for raising the quayside above predicted flood plain levels (?).
If this is historic preservation, is it really part of our remit or costs? Is it really necessary to raise the ground level rather than just the outer sea wall, with inner waterway acting as a high-volume flood path? How can there be such a significant forecasted cost increase when the design brief fundamentals via the consultation process have supposedly yet to be finally established?
There are several other current stadium proposals at similar stages of gestation, that we can take direct comparison from. Feyenoord are looking at a 63k triple-tier stadium with closing roof. This is being built on their waterfront with some reclamation required. The construction cost is being quoted as <€400m.
Roma have their stadium project, also on a historic waterfront. This has the additional parallels in that it is also designed by Dan Meis, with an almost exact equivalent capacity of just over 52k for a stadium construction cost <€300m.
I've tried to avoid whole-project costs as they can vary widly. From what we have seen so far, both these examples appear to be at least as structurally complex and ambitious in design terms as Bramley-Moore Dock. If anything, Feyenoord is quite a bit more substantial and technically challenging. Both appear to have progressed further in their respective design phases, at least as regards published images and presentation materials. So are their construction cost figures more solid too? If so, why the significant disparity?
• Transport: Transport planning is an absolute fundamental of stadium master-planning (and is probably the biggest stalling factor in Roma's project at the moment). Good transport infrastructure, preferably with mass rapid transit provision, has been a key motivator for stadium relocation to more city-central sites all over the world. Yet, during the recent presentation, transport was washed over quite briefly.
However, during the general discussion that followed, a real bombshell was casually dropped into the proceedings with no real elaboration. Apparently the station at Vauxhall is not happening, and furthermore was never on the cards to start with (?). I feel sure that this station -as featured several times in discussions, articles and elsewhere previously.
Colin Chong also stated that, at present, the public-to-private transport ratio at Goodison Park is approx 40:60, and that, given the relative confinement and logistics of the waterfront location (and increased capacity), that ratio will need to be reversed. Is that sufficient, and how can this be achieved in a location currently not served directly by ANY public transport?
Sandhills is the nearest station, but is no closer to Bramley-Moore Dock than Kirkdale is to Goodison Park (although Sandhills does have more direct services). By comparison, Goodison Park also benefits from many existing bus services, with multiple access and egress routes in all directions, including major arterial routes, major cross-city roads and inner ring roads all within close proximity. It might also surprise some to find out that Bramley-Moore Dock is only just less than half a mile closer to our national rail hub at Lime Street station than Goodison Park is.
The only thing offered at the meeting was vague references to shuttle buses, walking to town (over 1 mile to the Pier Head, 1.7 miles to Liverpool 1 bus station) or Sandhills (0.8 miles), and that commercial bus companies would want to take up the slack (?).
Frankly, that borders on Destination Kirkbyesque in crassness. There is nothing commercially sensitive in outlining how we're all supposed to get to and from the place, yet the level of info offered ranged from practically nothing to “build it and they will come” (the buses that is) – all several years into the process (?). Somehow, this is supposed to equate to projecting a reversal of current match-going transport modal trends to 60:40 (?).
Are these proportions even sufficient to match our current dispersal rates? Can the car contingent even be accommodated considering the reduction in on-road fly-parking, dedicated parking spaces, and available traffic dispersal lanes (taking into account existing traffic densities)? Access, egress and congestion issues can greatly affect matchday experience and general perception, (and be jumped on by planning) and when it's skipped over so briefly, and outside agencies are already being blamed, that should possibly set some alarm bells ringing imo. There are several obvious partial solutions that could've been offered, but weren't.
• Stadium configuration: In the presentation, the preferred configuration was stated as being North-South (on the stadium's longitudinal axis). The main reason for this apparently being to free up space for a large fanzone at the entrance to the dock. The slide wasn't really up long enough to examine fully, but a couple of things sprung to mind.
The site appears far wider east to west than north to south. Given that the stadium outline appears to hug both north and south site boundaries, is this not the least favourable orientation for external circulation purposes? Especially when access and dispersal is so one-sided?
Secondly, an east-to-west configuration might allow for a proportion of the seated bowl to be below the quayside level, as the width of the dock appears to be greater than pitch plus normal boundary widths (as far as I could make out). Even just a few metres recess below ground level can create a large construction cost saving, and simultaneously lower total stadium height for heritage planning restrictions (mentioned in the presentation).
This is a design tactic often utilised to reduce stadium costs. Most sites usually require extensive excavation to achieve this, whereas here we have a ready-made dock basin, but no inclination to use it(?). This could also leave a larger proportion of the historic quayside exposed and used as a design feature (?).
• Stadium Design: Colin reiterated several times that the club does not have a finished design, and that any references he was making was regarding the outline concept only. However, he spoke with enough conviction and detail on some issues to suggest that this might not change too much. Comparison cross-sections were shown to highlight the viewing angles/distances compared to a selection of other UK stadiums, including our current 1970 Main Stand (which incidentally comfortably offers the greatest capacity for footprint of all).
It was notable that our proposals contained no real element of overlapping tiers. The stress appears to be on the current headline-grabber of getting the front row as close to the pitch as possible, rather than the more traditionally desirable parameter of minimising the overall “average-viewing-distance” for everyone. The result being that the rake of the lower section has to be increased to preserve minimum C-value sightlines, and consequently the upper tier has to be moved further away from the pitch, with no overlap or subsequent spacial or capacity gain possible.
Surely some overlapping would've been a desirable design feature for a new Goodison (the birthplace of the double-decker stand), especially on such a constrained site? However, it was very evident that even in their proposed set-back position, the upper tier back rows are several metres short of the stadium external building-line. Short enough to even add 10+ rows on all but the cropped small end (which could equate to up to 10k more capacity, all within the construction envelope as shown) maintaining at least minimum C-values throughout.
Of course, in an east-west configuration, more space is freed up, the small end can be the same depth anyway, alleviating all capacity constraints further, and perhaps facilitating a two home-end stadium too (as we have now, but on a grander scale), and further refuting the arguments for the “prefered" configuration in the presentation.
The safe-standing proviso was conveniently added after the initial response to the 52k capacity statement, and felt a bit like appeasement tbh. and had the desired effect. Regardless of safe-standing, next time we play Bayern in a European semi, 52k will be the max at Bramley-Moore Dock.
• Multi-purpose use: Again, a key motive for any move is to increase income streams by accessing other markets supposedly not available at the current site (Liverpool FC have disproved most of those tbh). Therefore, as expected some stress was placed on all-year-round usage, and giving the site real “destination status”. However, these words are almost meaningless if the concept design doesn't suggest much beyond a regular single-use football stadium, with some minor ancillaries:
There is no closing roof to create the largest covered concert-arena/exhibition-space in the north (and be the country's first club with a closing roof, improving protection from the elements at this exposed site, and improving the atmosphere).
There is no moving or folding pitch.
There are only a very underwhelming 20 boxes, limiting potential for conversion to hotel/conference rooms/suites.
Surely this waterfront site would make an ideal hotel location, and help to pay for and justify 100+ convertible boxes (internal and external). Giving the lounges year-round custom.
Colin hinted at a move away from boxes, but 20 is still a pitiful number regardless of apparent current trends, which appears to be towards larger suites and lounges. If Liverpool have 64 boxes at Anfield, we should surely have far more than just 20/22 (there are non-league clubs with more), Spurs have 80 suites that hold more than the 120 boxes they had previously. Arsenal, Man Utd and Aston Villa all have over 100.
In other words, there is little here to demonstrate a destination status or much year-round usage, and we would need to provide far more flexibility and amenities for such an edge-of-town site to achieve this.
• Capacity: Most people (though not all) at the presentation voiced some concern about this. The hyped overall cost might suggest that the club are putting this figure out there because they wish to minimise their investment to either save on cost and/or build in ticket pricing controls by limiting supply (a la Juve) and are purposely inflating the actual costs to help justify their stance, and/or to exaggerate stadium quality (à la destination Kirkby).
Alternatively, what if their outline studies have identified severe site restrictions in terms of safe access, egress and transport? Colin hinted that modelling of crowd movement had been problematic even at just 52k, with 3 wide exits knocked through the wall (Not yet guaranteed), meaning they're also having to negotiate possible additional access via the Sewage plant site (Mmmmm...), and increasing permeability southwards along the exposed waterfront via bridges, to make it all work.
He also made an issue about Merseytravel, again hinting that initial transport planning has also not been as smooth as had been hoped. He offered no specifics, but blamed Merseytravel; it is difficult to understand why Merseytravel would be obstructive, especially considering that their governing authority is so supportive, to the extent of even providing a major funding source.
So again, is this more of a case that initial transport studies show the sums don't add up for >52k on this site? I can understand an economic case for limiting capacity in the short or medium term, but if the site itself cannot support expansion for whatever reason, or combination of reasons, then are we seriously barking up the wrong tree to start with?
• Enabling development: Another one of the main reasons for stadium relocation is the opportunity to exploit enabling developments, to leverage funding from joint ventures or our own stakeholder property speculation. With the intention being that there are usually much richer pickings in or near city centres.
Other than the initial failed Commonwealth Games bid, there appears to be very little or no added enabling incentive built into this project, either in terms of the immediate surrounding developments, or as part of the stadium-design itself in terms of hotel suites, executive boxes and alternative usage. As supposedly a major catalyst development for the northern end of this large project, should the club not expect substantial financial support for essentially bookending the whole scheme with a far bigger value-adding development than they originally envisaged?
Does the club have any fingers in any Liverpool Waters pies that we do not know about? If not, are they seriously missing a trick, or are the returns too low at the poorer end of this long-stalled scheme?
If none of these planets align, why are we jumping through so many hoops, at apparently massive cost? There have been some recent whispers of increased interest in adjacent plots since our announcements, are we taking any commercial advantage/benefit from these?
• Finances: After breaking down all costs: stadium construction, site preparation, planning, heritage, ancillary developments and infrastructure, plus taking into account additional funding generated via multi-use, stadium-sponsorship, naming-rights, enabling developments etc.... Ultimately, what will be the final cost to the club, and how do we pay for it? What is the tipping point in terms of viability or affordability, and making more cash available for the manager? Again, does the reduced capacity indicate very tight financial projections overall?
• Redevelopment or alternative sites: Considering all of the above, and given all the site-specific opportunities, costs and benefits at Bramley-Moore Dock, how does it all compare with any other site, or the alternative benchmark of bringing Goodison Park up to equivalent capacity and facilities? Taking into account any site's characteristic quality in terms of transport, access & egress, site-dispersal-rates, and perhaps in Goodison Park's case, even the added value of preservation of our club's heritage, building our legacy on the site of the world's first purpose-built football stadium, rather than just leaving a token legacy behind (at what expense, if any?).
At the same time remembering that Goodison Park can be more readily redeveloped incrementally, therefore lowering initial costs, with 25-31k seats recyclable lowering medium and longer-term cost, and eradicating risk of excess capacity by allowing ultimate capacity and capacity-make-up to be tested and assessed across each construction phase.
Furthermore, if Goodison Park can be redeveloped to 60k+ for less net cost than Bramley-Moore Dock, at what point does that become a better, or more viable or more future-proof option?
97 Posted 01/07/2019 at 18:02:25
It is a helluva outlay for something intended to generate more year-round income, yet extremely limited with for example STILL so few executive boxes, no hotel accommodation on site (which lots of clubs are tapping into), little scope to stage other money-generating attractions, as well as the transport issues you list.
98 Posted 01/07/2019 at 18:29:11
I was going to edit it, and turn it into a proper article with explanatory sketches/images, but just cut and pasted, forgetting how long it was... haha. It might look overly negative as it is intended as a bit of a critique. In reality, some issues and decisions that I have questioned may be justifiable, as we're not privy to all the detail, or any of the financial forces at play that may render some concerns irrelevant.
I maintain, however, that whatever they come up with at Bramley-Moore Dock, it should always be measured against what can be done at Goodison Park, because that has far less unknowns, and is where practically all of our history is, and is not limited by Unesco, World Heritage Site status, rising sea-levels or lack of buses. Then, and only then, can we judge the cost-benefit of both options.
99 Posted 01/07/2019 at 18:50:39
How possible is it that Moshiri sees this site as a beyond-Everton investment, which may act as a kind of cross-subsidy for the stadium?
100 Posted 01/07/2019 at 18:52:14
As you know, I am an enthusiast about the location for the new stadium as well as the Liverpool Waters development because, in my optimistic opinion, there is a huge potential to benefit the club as well as the people of Liverpool.
My hope is that the stakeholders have sufficient vision to come up with the correct development plan which adopts a “holistic” approach to the development. In my view, there should be a joint venture formed between Everton Football Club, Peel Holdings, and The Liverpool City Council.
I would suggest that, as you inferred, EFC has as much bargaining power within that group as either of the other two because a new stadium would provide an admiral buffer zone between the sewerage works and the Residential, Hotel, and Office Accommodation projects that would ensue.
If it was up to me (chuckles) this is what I would and wouldn't do:
I wouldn't upgrade Goodison – I'd press ahead with the new stadium.
I wouldn't fill the dock in. I would drain it and tank the walls.
I would create 2 off 3 metre levels of car park under the stadium footprint an area of which would be dedicated to the club and season ticket holders if they wanted to take up an option.
I would create 3 off 3 metre levels of car park between the stadium and dock wall for long and short term parking.
I would build the stadium North - South because it fits and would leave a large space between it and the dock road (for the fan concourse).
I would sink the pitch and terracing down into the former dock space to the top slab of the 2 level parking area.
I would build a double tram line from the stadium down to James Street that ran inside the dock wall until just past Oil Street the cut onto the dock road. This would provide transport for match day fans and occupants of the new buildings in the development.
I would invite a financier with plenty of money to become involved as the fourth member of the joint venture.
That would sort most of the issues out and with a bit of luck win the approval of Unesco – if not, c'est la vie.
Up the Blues (and the scousers)!
101 Posted 01/07/2019 at 19:08:44
Like Jay, I'm concerned. The golden goose that was Kings Dock has flown but at these costs and with all the attendant issues of infrastructure and revenue, we have to ask whether enough has been done to examine the Goodison Park option.
In a recent post I highlighted the fact that the club bought and then sold a number of properties adjacent to Goodison Park. The club failed to engage with LCC on the question of re-locating Gwladys Street School using the government funded BSF programme. If the club had acquired the present school site and owned many adjacent properties the redevelopment of Goodison Park would have been hugely attractive.
Has this opportunity definitely gone or is there still time to look at the school site? Given that you must keep primary schools within population catchment areas there would be the possibility of a trade-off with the Everton School in Spellow Lane; it is much easier to re-locate a secondary school and at a cost fractional to those being cited for Bramley-Moore Dock. Or is there a deal with Peel Holdings that we don't know about?
102 Posted 01/07/2019 at 19:16:14
We were drawn against St Greg's in either the Martindale or Echo cup.
I spent weeks winding the whole team up
I knew the lads on the Greg's team better than I knew ours. I knew what was coming if we lost
I played my heart out scoring my only two goals ever to put us in front twice. Metcalfe thought he'd heard me call someone a c##t and send me off. I didn't but I certainly did when he made me walk off - He later apologised saying I had been too hyper. But he could fuck off by then as far as I was concerened. I was already getting slaughtered.
I didn't even get the pleasure of scoring the most goals in the match. The Greg's center forward ended up clinching his hatrick with a last minute winner ( The Bastard)
He later moved to left back turned pro and won everything playing for Howard Kenadal
103 Posted 01/07/2019 at 20:19:30
Unlike so many Evertonians, I already feel the advent of foreign ownership and team management has stolen the soul of our great club and we might as well be called Brazil Reserves as claim ongoing connection with the City in which most of us were born —even if we didn't go to Cardinal Godfrey's!
Now well into my dotage, the projected move (if it ever happens) will never see me as a customer and I shall go to my grave so thankful to have been blessed by The Holy Trinity. Not so many can say that these days!
104 Posted 01/07/2019 at 21:03:08
105 Posted 01/07/2019 at 21:07:40
After reading that, Tom, I can't believe I went to the same school as you mate, and now look forward to the information the club has promised us this month.
106 Posted 01/07/2019 at 21:40:21
They have already bought the land and already paid Dan Meiss for his stadium concept, so as much as I and others would have liked to have stayed at Goodison Park, I am afraid that boat has well and truly sailed.
I have even less concern about maintaining our World Heritage Site. People come to this great City for many reasons, but I have never heard anyone say I came to visit Liverpool because its a World Heritage Site.
107 Posted 01/07/2019 at 22:13:10
That could well be the explanation; who knows what or who else is involved behind the scenes?
Hopefully whatever reservations I have highlighted are either unfounded or can be resolved. We'll see what the next few weeks or months brings, and hopefully whatever the outcome, it's the best solution for the club.
108 Posted 01/07/2019 at 23:04:39
So many flaws and cracks now starting to appear.
I want the stadium to happen but only if we're going to get a top class stadium — big, bold, and ambitious, an imaginative stadium that will make a statement.
The stadium simply has to be the best that can be.
52,000 is ridiculously unambitious. Add another 10k and more. If Feyenoord are building 63,000 and a roof then we should be at least equal to that.
A retractable roof may not be on the cards but would be an excellent way to deal with a number of waterfront and weather-related issues. Plus, it would be a first for the English league.
The north-south direction was (so I recall) based on tv requirements (to do with sun). But an east-west makes more sense. Especially if they had a roof like The Lucas Oil Stadium.
A stadium that doesn't have any overhangs is both a waste (better building up rather than out) and as it was pointed out Goodison was the first stadium to have 4 double-decker stands.
I also advocate and fed back in the surveys that they should 'use the dock' and have it below ground level like the Lucas Oil Stadium.
I'm just as peeved that these latest plans have been revealed when this was meant to be at the end of the month. I squirm at the direction this new stadium is going.
Hope we don't end up with a half baked stadium, bereft of the ambition a club like Everton requires, just because we are where we are.
Instead of being bold and ambitious it would be just like Everton to come up with plans scaled down to match the unambitious running of the club in the last 20-odd years. We'll see.
109 Posted 01/07/2019 at 23:33:49
I just wonder what Sir John Moores might have been like on our club's behalf instead of those now entering their fifth year of plate-spinning in terms of obtaining permissions, finance and a start date as the costs rocket for no discernible reason, the forecast capacity dwindles, the money-making multi-use corporate "enterprise" aspect remains risible, no transport commitments are made, and now the involvement of an organisation who want to preserve one of the most down-trodden areas of our entire city seems to present a major stumbling block.
Meanwhile, Goodison Park, our home, in my lifetime only second to Wembley as the country's finest stadium, maybe could have been transformed into something akin to the new Spurs ground as a more affordable money-generator (and I rely a lot on Tom Hughes's expertise in saying this) has been effectively left to rot as Kenwright's "leadership" has drained the club of money, history and reputation ever since he took over.
He's plunged us to depths way deeper than Bramley-Moore dock and its tight confines can ever hope to quickly rectify.
110 Posted 01/07/2019 at 23:58:39
Perhaps the shareholder interests extend beyond the immediate benefit to the club. I have always dismissed such talk as speculation. Whilst it remains as such, the credibility of the theory grows.
111 Posted 01/07/2019 at 01:18:25
Contrary to what some might think, I'm not at all anti-move per se. I actually voted to go to the Kings Dock as I believed that did tick most of the boxes, and several yrs ago spent some time looking at the likes of the central docks, the Loop site, WHP and a few other places too.
My priority is simply that we look at all the options properly and get the best deal, stadium and location that we can have, and that always has to be measured against what can be done at Goodison Park. That for me has to be the starting point and benchmark for any football club, but especially ours, because Goodison Park is no ordinary stadium.
Destination Kirkby was literally and figuratively miles off the mark, required the hardsell, and lies about Goodison Park's potential redevelopment. Therefore, I've always said that the first stage of the process should've been to commission a design competition for the redevelopment of Goodison Park, in cahoots with the city-planners to explore any viable expansion. As I've tried to show, even the most basic scrutiny of Bramley-Moore Dock proposals to date identifies potential problems.
Ultimately, it should always be about the comparison and how the respective cost:benefits pan out for each option. If Bramley-Moore Dock is the best option, it shouldn't require any hardsell, and nor should we be convinced by impressive graphics. Everything has to add up, and not be a forced fit.
I believe we lost Kings Dock due to internal politics, and that wherever we end up should be entirely on its merit, and because it is the best option. That may yet be Bramley-Moore Dock, but it has to be about a whole lot more than "Royal Blue Mersey" taglines and glossy images (when we get to see them).
112 Posted 02/07/2019 at 01:43:05
I'm sure your time with Brother Carey, McGovern or Bob left you with some OCD too...
Mine was a stadium obsession, I still can't shake it. haha
113 Posted 02/07/2019 at 05:03:20
I don't quite know how we ended up playing St Gregs, but I don't think it was a Martindale or Echo cup game mate.
I remember it was mid week (after school), but would Tom Metcalfe have been allowed to referee a cup game ?
Cardinal Godfrey used to share a bus with a couple of other schools and they would occasionally do trips to away matches. I remember going to Leeds on it - I think it was 69/70. Never again. Slow wouldnt be the word. We didn`t even get back in time for MOTD
114 Posted 02/07/2019 at 07:30:16
Some of the issues raised may be relevant but at least let's see what the club is planning first before the moaning starts.
115 Posted 02/07/2019 at 08:08:48
Your comments re the finance reinforce that point of view. Why then build an undersized stadium?
I feel your suggestion that the shareholder's interests extend beyond the stadium is well founded but it seems to me that it is not a good enough reason to build an undersized stadium. It looks to me that they are banking on the rail seating to increase the capacity.
The next consultative meeting is the opportunity to address the issues raised by Tom and others but he should not be left to ask all the questions himself because he won't be allowed to.
According to his post at #96 there are 8 key questions to be asked:
3. Stadium configuration
4. Stadium design
5. Multi-purpose use
7. Enabling development
8. Redevelopment of Goodison
I would add another one - Finance, or maybe that would be included in the cost question.
Tom and Paul should join up with another 6 ToffeeWebbers and discuss the questions with a view to taking one each into the consultation.
116 Posted 02/07/2019 at 10:47:13
Furthermore we are now hearing noises of concern regarding the ability of the site to cope with more than 52,000.
The "potential to expand up to 62,000" was a throw away line intended to placate those with faith in the club to deliver future promises.
Which brings us back to does it make sense to build a stadium on a difficult and costly site to hold 52,000 spectators.
The club will have to address these issues, particularly the business model and the impact on ticket prices when we move.
Affordability does not sit with a lower than expected capacity, potentially fewer premium seats, an expensive site and a funding model heavily dependent upon debt.
Add to that a business that can't currently match income and expenditure in a sector that has just removed its effective wage cap and there are many serious questions to be answered.
117 Posted 02/07/2019 at 11:07:09
Ill probably have some more questions maybe tomorrow. Please keep an eye out for it.
118 Posted 02/07/2019 at 12:05:38
I'm more nuts and bolts than pounds, shillings and pence to be honest, so forgive me if I can't fully understand your thinking.
To me, cost per seat can rise considerably with capacity, and return per seat can fall with increased or excess supply. So there has to be some sweet spot were both correlations cross, with some wiggle room to account for new stadium effects and success on the pitch to give a reasonable ROI, repayment terms. It might be okay in the proverbial freeby (like Man City and West Ham) where you can simply stack'em high and sell'em cheap, but if you're having to pay for the whole stadium, there will be limits which is why most of the larger clubs have redeveloped.
That said, I don't think this is anything like a £600m stadium. so it is quite difficult to be objective without the cost breakdown, and knowing how it can be paid for.
When asked about the capacity and the season ticket waiting list in the presentation, Colin and Mo said that the current list is approx 10k, but going on experience they only really envisaged a 4k take-up (if I remember right). Given that, and all the other sales and fanbase data, they said their experts actually recommended a capacity of just 48k. Therefore they argued that 52k was actually on the ambitious side.
I can half understand that, because there is a whole range of approaches to stadium development or redevelopment. Juventus, said they were going for quality over quantity. They already had 65k+ stadium and could've just stayed there. Instead, they built a 40k within its footprint, guaranteeing full houses and thus controlling ticket prices (and limiting that initial outlay). LFC are doing similar by phased redevelopment testing demand incrementally, and demanding very short term ROI before sanctioning any further expansion (and their fanbase dwarfs ours).
Alternatively Spurs are at the other end of that scale, and have been ambitious, and have leveraged quite a massive corporate offer and various funding mechanisms to help finance it. Similarly for Feyenoord. Perhaps we should approach their architects and ask how they can build bigger and more complex for less? See how much they'd charge for planting it on Bramley-Moore Dock or the Loop site. ;)
My feelings from what we have seen so far, are that we MIGHT only ever be able to afford, to get planning for, provide infrastructure for, and ultimately deliver 60k+ seats, at a redeveloped Goodison Park. Of course, that shatters our waterfront dream, and perhaps any major property speculation that might be the current motivator for our owners.
119 Posted 02/07/2019 at 12:22:37
I've stated on these pages many times but the new Wembley, cost about the same as the six new stadiums Germany created for the 2006 World Cup, and thought I'd read somewhere about it being because of the cost of British steel?
With Finch Farm being sponsored by one of Usmanov's companies, then surely Everton, will be using his steel?
Even if you give it to your mate it at cost price, there must be fortunes to be made, and this is how I've always seen the bigger picture. This development is going to make them fortunes! I wouldn't be surprised to see these two fellas with an equal partnership with Peel Holdings, once this stadium kickstarts the whole Liverpool Waters project.
120 Posted 02/07/2019 at 22:29:41
I have had a good think about this and I have come to the conclusion, with all due respect to you, that 52k capacity must stack up for Ryazantsev and Moshiri.
Moshiri is a billionaire accountant and his right-hand numbers man is Ryazantsev – an expert in economics and finance – I just can't see them getting those numbers wrong.
To add to that, Moshiri is on the record as saying we will have a new stadium and that he will put as much money in as it takes.
I still think there is another angle in here somewhere that will bring more revenue into the club (or the owner's bank balance). Pure conjecture, I know, but it has to have something to do with Peel's development as Tony commented.
As far as the capacity is concerned, we will have to wait and see but the consolation for me is that a crowd of 52,000 at Goodison Park in the sixties meant a tremendous atmosphere.
The finance is another interesting one. The Council offered the club mate's rates to fund half the stadium costs. Under normal circumstances, you would have thought Moshiri would have ripped their arm off... but he didn't.
Paul this question is a bit out there but do you think it would be feasible for “someone” to buy into the ownership of the new stadium.
We are in July now so it won't be long before some of Tom's questions will asked, addressed, or answered. I am on tenterhooks.
PS – just spotted this – no doubt now where the City and Local Business stands on the World Heritage question.
121 Posted 02/07/2019 at 22:50:35
122 Posted 03/07/2019 at 12:02:56
He will then form part of a design review team to ensure that the design intent is achieved. Hence the lack of detailed information after all these years.
It could well be that such a tenderer might come up with alternatives to the current "vision" with regards to lowering the pitch level, overlapping stands, etc. Depending of course on the quality of the invited tenderers.
123 Posted 03/07/2019 at 13:30:07
Canvas any demographic of tourists and visitors to the city you like and I'd lay a pound to a penny that their motives for visiting Liverpool would place the Beatles connection, the footy, the weeknd craic and stag and hen 'dos' high up the list.
Ask them if they came for or know anything about the city's World Heritage Site listing and I'd place a similar bet that the majority response would be 'Do what?'!
124 Posted 03/07/2019 at 15:26:19
Interesting opinion. He's always given the impression that he's the architect who will deliver the final design, but you never know.
126 Posted 03/07/2019 at 19:41:06
Been a good source of income over the years! I hope I won't be called in to sort out Bramley-Moore Dock!
127 Posted 03/07/2019 at 21:41:47
Tom Hughes, in particular, thanks for your thoughts. I love Goodison, but on balance I have come round to the concept of a stadium on the banks of the Mersey. But, and its a big but, I cannot fathom how access and egress can be worked out. Questionable transport and parking, 50-60,000 pushing through very limited gateways, there is going to have to be an excellent, cheap “offer” (bars, food stalls) to persuade people to get there early, leave late.
Best wishes all round.
128 Posted 03/07/2019 at 22:08:15
Eric # 126 - I suspected you are in or have been in the building game. Here are a few questions I would be interested in your opinion on:-
1. Why would you fill a perfectly good excavation in (the dock) when you could convert it into a revenue earning underground car park. OR
2. Sink the pitch into it by 2 or 3 metres and saving you the cost of the equivalent height of above quay level construction.
3. Do you have any idea what the difference in cost would be between filling it in and converting it to a 2 or 3 level underground car park?
129 Posted 03/07/2019 at 22:34:54
130 Posted 04/07/2019 at 07:59:44
I'm all for cost savings so don't see why when we have a big hole we shouldn't use it so I reckon we could do both your suggestions. 1 level of car park (team on matchdays and income other times) AND sink the pitch.
But I'm no design expert, I just usually get to tell the designers where they went wrong when it's all done!
131 Posted 04/07/2019 at 16:55:32
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.