Jump to content


Photo

How Do We Go Forward?


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 05 Jul 2008 - 12:40

It seems the same every summer now.

Moyes wants more cash for players for both transfer and wages. Us, the fans would like the same.

The board would also like to offer the high transfer budgets and greater wage budgets. They borrow money from somewhere to be able to cope with the demands as they don't have the cash. This increases debt and I assume the outgoings increase also as we are taking more debt out which would mean that the money will be tighter again the following season.

How do we stop the cycle?

Should Moyes stop being so demanding? After all without his constant demands the board would have room to maneuver and could possibly pay off chunks of debt and reduce outgoings making a better starting point for the long-term.

Just playing devil's advocate.
  • 0

#2 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 05 Jul 2008 - 12:44

If anything, Moyes should be more demanding. If we stopped spending the money we'd fall down the league and our better players would leave and Moyes would shortly follow.

Do we really want to be like Boro and be in mid-table obscurity year after year? - Nil Satis Nisi Optimum, the board should find the money themselves or sell up to investors. The Premier League is money game whether you like it or not.
  • 0

#3 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 05 Jul 2008 - 13:25

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum, the board should find the money themselves or sell up to investors. The Premier League is money game whether you like it or not.


spot on!

we need someone to bankroll the club to move forward, there is no way a club like everton, this size, with the high finishes we've had, are not wanted by investors!

we need moyes to be asking for more from everybody at the club
  • 0

#4 Rubecula

Rubecula

    COFFIN DODGER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,335 posts

Posted 05 Jul 2008 - 14:24

As hard as it feels to say this, but I think I need to.

Everton need a big investment, perhaps from a foreigner with a lot of cash to spend. Can you imagine what Moyes would be capable of if he had a big income from a Roman Abramovitch type of investor?

Yes it sounds almost treacherous to say this. But where else can we get the money the club needs?
  • 0

#5 Fozastuta

Fozastuta

    Mikel Arteta

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts

Posted 05 Jul 2008 - 15:01

We need new investors, and new businessmen at the helm. How on earth, in this era of English football, are we borrowing to fund the transfers of players, our books must be a right mess due to the mis-management by the current custodians. We are know being told, to forget any activity, untill we return from Sion, we have a manager refusing to sign a contract for whatever reason, and a squad barely big enough for a 5 aside game, its truely pathetic.


We will make strides if and when Kenwright sells up, a foreigner cant do any worse. Moving a club out of its home city, crippling the club with debt, and selling its assets, what more can go wrong.

Edited by Fozastuta, 05 Jul 2008 - 15:01.

  • 0

#6 c1982

c1982

    COYB!!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,397 posts

Posted 05 Jul 2008 - 16:02

It seems the same every summer now.

Moyes wants more cash for players for both transfer and wages. Us, the fans would like the same.

The board would also like to offer the high transfer budgets and greater wage budgets. They borrow money from somewhere to be able to cope with the demands as they don't have the cash. This increases debt and I assume the outgoings increase also as we are taking more debt out which would mean that the money will be tighter again the following season.

How do we stop the cycle?

Should Moyes stop being so demanding? After all without his constant demands the board would have room to maneuver and could possibly pay off chunks of debt and reduce outgoings making a better starting point for the long-term.

Just playing devil's advocate.


Move ground!
  • 0

#7 JD in DC

JD in DC

    Mick Lyons

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts

Posted 05 Jul 2008 - 16:17

Where do teams make their money?

Local revenue, which includes ticket sales, luxury boxes and seat licenses (for teams lucky enough to have modern stadiums that can offer or demand such things), broadcasting rights fees for local TV and radio stations, merchandise sales, concession sales, and team sponsorships.

Central revenues — cash generated by national TV contracts, licensing deals, and revenue distributed by the FA.

The Champions League, for those select few lucky enough to get there.

Fact is, local revenues are a far larger potential source of income than central, and while it's hard for me to be sure from 3000 miles away, I get a strong impression that we are not maximizing our local revenues. The shortcomings of the new stadium and that deal have been talked into the ground, and another good example is the shirt sponsorship renewal - the club was spinning it as the richest shirt sponsorship in the club's history, while many people on here were pointing out that it was chump change compared to what a lot of other clubs get. Maybe we're pointing the finger in the wrong direction - instead of firing Kenwright, maybe we should be looking to fire whoever runs the sales and marketing department.

Point being, if you have a club that is maximizing its local revenue sources, you can generate plenty of money to spend even without the Champions League (see: Newcastle, Tottenham), without the owner having to bankrupt himself. If you have a club that is maximizing its local revenues AND making the Champions League every year, you have a potential juggernaut (see: ManU). Actually, ManU is a good example, because the Glazers saddled them with a huge debt service when they bought in - they're paying £60 million a year in interest payments alone - and yet they still managed to report a pre-tax profit of £60 million last fiscal year thanks to over £200 million earned in gross revenue. http://in.rediff.com.../jan/11manu.htm breaks down their revenues pretty succinctly: £93 million in game day sales (tickets, concessions, etc.), £62 million in media revenues (including the Champions League), and £56 million in merchandise sales.

Now compare that to us. The most recent numbers from Forbes list of the world's 25 most valuable clubs put ManU's revenue for the 2006-07 season at about £196 million, slightly lower than reported in the above article but still the second-highest total of any club in the world. What's eye-opening, however, is that they put our revenue for the season at about £51 million, meaning we made less from all forms of income than ManU made from merchandise sales alone. And lest you think it's all to do with the Champions League and global branding, Tottenham's revenue was reported at £103 million and Newcastle's at £87 million. Having a wealthy owner will help you spend more money to buy better players, but it won't automatically help your team make more money. For that a team needs to have a sound business model - sales, marketing, merchandising, sponsorships, and other stuff like that. And when you look at the numbers and see that we had the smallest revenues out of all 25 clubs on the list - less than the other 9 English clubs (even West Ham in a relegation battling year made more money than we did), less than all six German clubs even though the Premier League is ten times wealthier than the Bundesliga, even less than Celtic for God's sake - clearly whatever business model we have right now, if any, is not working.
  • 0

#8 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 05 Jul 2008 - 19:05

C1892 - I agree to an extent but any stadium improvements have to have a sound business plan. I don't believe Kirkby has that at the moment.

JD - Thanks for killing the topic ! :)

I personally think poor merchandise sales has a lot to do with Umbro. Whilst the kit sales were a new record high last year, Umbro are simply not a fashionable brand any more. Apart from the kit, nobody wants to wear Umbro branded clothing. I believe that a change to a 'better' brand would invigorate the the merchandise sales.

Interesting point about the Bundesliga but at the same time they are still riding on the success of World Cup 2006, a lot of stadiums were revamped for the competition which has allowed the clubs to cash in because of their advanced facilities.

You will always get those who believe that Newcastle United will gain more through merchandise sales because they are a one club city. Bill Kenwright said as much this week at a meeting with London Supporters Association. Spurs always seem to have money to spend because they have a large corporate following - we currently have a larger average attendance than Spurs.
  • 0

#9 Fozastuta

Fozastuta

    Mikel Arteta

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts

Posted 05 Jul 2008 - 21:51

The clubs with the best revenue through sales etc, are run by succesful, rich businessmen. They are rich, because of there acumen in business, we have a board lacking in all areas of business, hence why we are running at a loss in this day and age.

The Glaziers are a perfect example, United fans seen this as the end of there club, however, this family are leading people in the world trade and business, they are not your average joe's, taking a gamble, they are there to make a success. A stronger United, means a richer Glazier.

Were not being run into debt because of poor sales, were being run into debt, because those in charge, are not graspings the clubs potential, beacuse they dont know how.
  • 0

#10 Rubecula

Rubecula

    COFFIN DODGER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,335 posts

Posted 06 Jul 2008 - 02:22

You may have a point there.

We need the managing director of Boeing to take over, he has good sales acumen and can sell rubbish to the highest bidder.
  • 0

#11 JD in DC

JD in DC

    Mick Lyons

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts

Posted 06 Jul 2008 - 04:01

JD - Thanks for killing the topic ! :)

My pleasure! :D I used to work in the front office of a sports organization once upon a time, so I know a little bit about how sports marketing and finances work. It's an interesting topic to me.

Interesting point about the Bundesliga but at the same time they are still riding on the success of World Cup 2006, a lot of stadiums were revamped for the competition which has allowed the clubs to cash in because of their advanced facilities.


Good point - the only German club on the list that didn't host any World Cup matches was Werder Bremen. Something else I found out about the Bundesliga while I was looking through some stuff today. Bundesliga clubs on average only spent about 45% of their revenue on player wages in 06-07. In the Premier League that number was about 66%. We were even higher than that - 75% of our revenue went towards wages - and we still weren't even close to the worst offender.

You will always get those who believe that Newcastle United will gain more through merchandise sales because they are a one club city. Bill Kenwright said as much this week at a meeting with London Supporters Association. Spurs always seem to have money to spend because they have a large corporate following - we currently have a larger average attendance than Spurs.


Exactly my point. You don't make big bucks by soaking the fans, you make big bucks by soaking the corporations. I'm not a big fan of having seats at stadiums that are overpriced to sell to corporations rather than true fans (which it sounds like is what Tottenham does), but it's the way a lot of professional sports are going, and with the player wages and other costs being what they are, and the pressure from fans to spend big and win, I can't blame the teams who choose to go that way. It's lovely that Wigan makes their ticket prices dirt cheap so that all 450 of their fans can afford to go to every game, but when Manchester United makes more money from ticket sales in two games at Old Trafford than Wigan makes in an entire season, you have to ask yourself if that kind of altruism is really practical for a club trying to compete at the Premiership level.

And whether a city has one club, two clubs, or 13 clubs like London, you still have to at least try your damnedest to market yourselves. Inter Milan, Atletico Madrid, and Rangers all manage to sell plenty of merchandise in their own right despite sharing cities with wealthier neighbors, so we shouldn't be hearing any excuses. If the way we're marketing right now isn't getting results, then let's try something else.

Edited by JD in DC, 06 Jul 2008 - 04:05.

  • 0

#12 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 06 Jul 2008 - 13:06

if there is to be a fan take over i'm putting JD up for chairman of the board!

forza - you make a lot of good points there mate.

a lot of people who seem to defend kenwright and the board i dont think they look at issues other than on the pitch. these guys running our club dont have a clue.granted kenwright is not a businessman, i will never hold that against him, i genuinely think that he believes hes doing his best for the club he loves. but kenwright hired a businessman to run the club, one mr keith wyness.
if anyone has looked at his history of buiness, he has been successful in his early years, but over about the last ten years or so he has never made a profit and he almost bankrupted aberdeen. branded a nazi by their fans for his ruining of the club. and lets not forget, recently administered coventry were his model for the ground move.

i found this site a little interesting: http://wynessout.com/
  • 0

#13 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 07 Jul 2008 - 09:54

You know how pathetic it's become when we have to cancel a friendly because we don't have enough players :angry:
  • 0

#14 carlmc25

carlmc25

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,086 posts

Posted 07 Jul 2008 - 12:11

This is an interesting one, I think the only short term way forward is to somehow break into the Champions League and the revenue that comes with it, but to do so we need to spend big to get the squad/players we need to challenge the top 4. If we do gamble on spending big to make the top 4 and don't make the Champions League then we're in trouble (see Leeds), so it's a difficult one.

The basic bottom line is we're the second club in Liverpool in one of the worst grounds in the Premiership. It's hard to sell corporate boxes/seats for big money because the ground is well past it's best, no one is going to spend big money to sit in a run down stadium, especially when we have Anfield just down the road which is bigger, better and Liverpool is a much more glamourous global commodity. We need a new stadium. I don't know if I want it at Kirkby but we need a new stadium otherwise no one is going to come in and buy the club from Kenwright for vast sums of money as they will know they need to spend millions on the stadium, plus the fact that we're already millions in debt and operating (on the pitch) to our maximum capacity already. Man City moved and look what happened.

Personally, if I wasn't an Everton fan I couldn't really see much benefit in buying Everton at the current time with all the politics with the ground move, debt, rundown stadium etc etc so I don't see why anyone expects some massive spending money magnate to come in and take over from Kenwright. Until we move stadium or at least start building one then I can't see anything changing in the near future.
  • 0

#15 Fozastuta

Fozastuta

    Mikel Arteta

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts

Posted 07 Jul 2008 - 14:14

The basic bottom line is we're the second club in Liverpool in one of the worst grounds in the Premiership. It's hard to sell corporate boxes/seats for big money because the ground is well past it's best, no one is going to spend big money to sit in a run down stadium, especially when we have Anfield just down the road which is bigger, better and Liverpool is a much more glamourous global commodity. We need a new stadium. I don't know if I want it at Kirkby but we need a new stadium otherwise no one is going to come in and buy the club from Kenwright for vast sums of money as they will know they need to spend millions on the stadium, plus the fact that we're already millions in debt and operating (on the pitch) to our maximum capacity already. Man City moved and look what happened.


The stadium issue is a biggie, i agree. However, Kirby is short sightedness at its full. The deal of the century, is far from it, considering it will cost us 100m and rising, while Goodisn can be redeveloped for 130m. Another point with regard to buy outs, Liverpool were bought with stadium issues, much more coastly than ours; Portsmouth, are in more need of stadium developments than ourselves, plus Phillip Green and Robert Earl have joined the board for one thing and one thing only, to make a buck from a stadium move. The current custodians are the problem, not Goodison at this time, a man with a little foresight would realise we need the city of Liverpool, more than any piss pot stadium.
  • 0

#16 carlmc25

carlmc25

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,086 posts

Posted 07 Jul 2008 - 14:38

The stadium issue is a biggie, i agree. However, Kirby is short sightedness at its full. The deal of the century, is far from it, considering it will cost us 100m and rising, while Goodisn can be redeveloped for 130m. Another point with regard to buy outs, Liverpool were bought with stadium issues, much more coastly than ours; Portsmouth, are in more need of stadium developments than ourselves, plus Phillip Green and Robert Earl have joined the board for one thing and one thing only, to make a buck from a stadium move. The current custodians are the problem, not Goodison at this time, a man with a little foresight would realise we need the city of Liverpool, more than any piss pot stadium.

I'm not 100% convinced on either staying at Goodison or moving to Kirkby as to be perfectly honest I don't know enough about the proposed move and am just trusting in those running the club to make the correct decision based on all the facts. All I know is Goodison is rundown and is sitting on virtually worthless land. Liverpool will always be a viable proposition to buyers due to their history and glamour, they will always make money through merchandising, through tv revenue and they are the biggest club in Liverpool whether we like it or not. As I said before, I don't know much about the stadium issue, but is the £130m to redevelop Goodison a recent figure, as this may have now gone up due to the credit crunch and it's subsequent effect on the economy (fuel costs etc)?

Man City are not in the city of Manchester are they and they've got a wealthy chairman (although I wouldn't want him in charge anyway!). Isn't the city of London only actually about 1 square mile? in which case surely the likes of Tottenham, Chelsea etc surely aren't in London either? It's all relative, as far as I'm concerned the likes of Bootle (Sefton not Liverpool) and Kirkby are as much part of Liverpool as Speke whether they're officially in the boundary or not. That being said, I'd rather we were in the King's Dock! :)
  • 0

#17 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 07 Jul 2008 - 17:58

Man City are not in the city of Manchester are they and they've got a wealthy chairman (although I wouldn't want him in charge anyway!).


Man City have always been in Manchester, the City. Man Utd come under Trafford MB Council. The major difference between that and Everton moving to Kirkby is that Old Trafford opened in 1910 and the infrastructure surrounding the stadium has had 98 years of incremental improvements to be able to cope with demands of the cricket ground and football ground. With Kirkby we're starting from scratch and the inconveniences involved in getting to Kirkby (bare in mind the capacity is 50,401) is enough to put a lot of fans off going.

I agree with you that they're part of Liverpool (I used to think Skem was in Liverpool!) but the ways of transporting a mass of people is not there in all towns we consider Liverpool.
  • 0

#18 Randomness

Randomness

    My Last Avatar Was Cursed

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 07 Jul 2008 - 18:47

50,401?? the capacity has Fallen again and we havent even started building!!!
  • 0

#19 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 07 Jul 2008 - 19:23

I'm not 100% convinced on either staying at Goodison or moving to Kirkby as to be perfectly honest I don't know enough about the proposed move and am just trusting in those running the club to make the correct decision based on all the facts. All I know is Goodison is rundown and is sitting on virtually worthless land. Liverpool will always be a viable proposition to buyers due to their history and glamour, they will always make money through merchandising, through tv revenue and they are the biggest club in Liverpool whether we like it or not. As I said before, I don't know much about the stadium issue, but is the £130m to redevelop Goodison a recent figure, as this may have now gone up due to the credit crunch and it's subsequent effect on the economy (fuel costs etc)?

Man City are not in the city of Manchester are they and they've got a wealthy chairman (although I wouldn't want him in charge anyway!). Isn't the city of London only actually about 1 square mile? in which case surely the likes of Tottenham, Chelsea etc surely aren't in London either? It's all relative, as far as I'm concerned the likes of Bootle (Sefton not Liverpool) and Kirkby are as much part of Liverpool as Speke whether they're officially in the boundary or not. That being said, I'd rather we were in the King's Dock! :)


Thank fuck for that, I thought I was the only Everton fan that doesn't know all the facts that the board have to make a decision. There must be a lot of people on the board that post on here...
Carl, a good post and I pretty much agree with all of it.
  • 0

#20 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 07 Jul 2008 - 19:25

Man City have always been in Manchester, the City. Man Utd come under Trafford MB Council. The major difference between that and Everton moving to Kirkby is that Old Trafford opened in 1910 and the infrastructure surrounding the stadium has had 98 years of incremental improvements to be able to cope with demands of the cricket ground and football ground. With Kirkby we're starting from scratch and the inconveniences involved in getting to Kirkby (bare in mind the capacity is 50,401) is enough to put a lot of fans off going.

I agree with you that they're part of Liverpool (I used to think Skem was in Liverpool!) but the ways of transporting a mass of people is not there in all towns we consider Liverpool.


What is your source for the 50,401 capacity? (Not nit picking, genuinely interested.)
Has an official insfrastructure study been completed for the Kirkby move? Oh and define "inconvenince" in getting to Kirkby. :)
  • 0

#21 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 07 Jul 2008 - 22:29

http://www.knowsley....dCapacities.pdf

I don't what you mean by an official infrastructure study. Steer Davies Gleave have made a transport plan but last I heard Merseytravel said it was out of the question because they don't have enough buses. Keith Wyness stated it was a "work in progress" two months ago:

http://www.destinati...2_-_minutes.pdf

I'll see if I can find the original Merseytravel report again. The only to the story I know about Merseytravel not having enough buses if is on the KEIOC website but I know that won't satisfy you ;)


Some further info on toffeeweb here about the transport arrangements:

http://www.toffeeweb...bmissionID=4675

The guy called Tom Hughes was involved with the Merseytram project so knows a fair bit about Kirkby's infrastructure through that.


The inconvenience is all the waiting around for the train/walking to the parked cars 2km away thanks to the resident parking scheme :)
  • 0

#22 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 08 Jul 2008 - 11:42

i'll add to the inconvenience of going into kirkby.
take a look at what happened when they had the protest drive through kirkby around where the stadium will be. it was chaos and that was only about 100 cars, they expect 7000 on a match day.

im pretty confident we wont be going to kirkby anyway, but if we do i believe a lot of people will soon join us kenwrigth bashers.
  • 0

#23 carlmc25

carlmc25

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,086 posts

Posted 08 Jul 2008 - 11:50

i'll add to the inconvenience of going into kirkby.
take a look at what happened when they had the protest drive through kirkby around where the stadium will be. it was chaos and that was only about 100 cars, they expect 7000 on a match day.

im pretty confident we wont be going to kirkby anyway, but if we do i believe a lot of people will soon join us kenwrigth bashers.

again, I reiterate that I'm not an expert on Kirkby but didn't Wyness say that the traffic infrastructure for the Kirkby stadium would be the best in the country? I know he's obviously going to say good things but he seemed pretty confident in the plans. That was always the problem with the Kings Dock, it just wasn't viable due to the chaos it would have caused traffic wise in the city centre.
  • 0

#24 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 08 Jul 2008 - 12:08

again, I reiterate that I'm not an expert on Kirkby but didn't Wyness say that the traffic infrastructure for the Kirkby stadium would be the best in the country? I know he's obviously going to say good things but he seemed pretty confident in the plans. That was always the problem with the Kings Dock, it just wasn't viable due to the chaos it would have caused traffic wise in the city centre.


It was mostly not viable due to us not having the money that was 'ring fenced' to pay for our share.
  • 0

#25 carlmc25

carlmc25

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,086 posts

Posted 08 Jul 2008 - 12:16

It was mostly not viable due to us not having the money that was 'ring fenced' to pay for our share.

quite possibly, but I know as soon as we announced the Kings Dock thing I heard a lot of people saying NO CHANCE due to the traffic problems around the albert dock area, plus with the new Liverpool One shopping centre it would have been absolute madness on a Saturday, it's already bad enough when there's a concert on, imagine the chaos with 40000-50000 extra people on a Saturday afternoon! I think the Kings Dock was doomed from the start, which is a real pity as it would have been a truly amazing/iconic location.
  • 0

#26 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 08 Jul 2008 - 17:48

again, I reiterate that I'm not an expert on Kirkby but didn't Wyness say that the traffic infrastructure for the Kirkby stadium would be the best in the country? I know he's obviously going to say good things but he seemed pretty confident in the plans. That was always the problem with the Kings Dock, it just wasn't viable due to the chaos it would have caused traffic wise in the city centre.


in many ways carl he is correct, if you take into account it is close to east lancs road, m53 m56 m57 m6 m62 are all not very far away. btu as soon as you get off the east lancs road and actually into kirkby it has the infastructure of a medium sized village. Goodison can be clear of cars with in half an hour, this project will be looking more towards three hours to clear people away as kirkby will become a no car zone.

so to summarise, yes kirkby will be one of the best served gounds to get to by road. but the car can only go so far, you will then have to wait for a bus from outside kirkby to take you to the stadium. they will need around 90 buses i think it was, doing two trips. we will have the biggest park and ride system in europe.

you are right thou, it would have been the same at the docks too. as will scotland road.
  • 0

#27 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 08:25

in many ways carl he is correct, if you take into account it is close to east lancs road, m53 m56 m57 m6 m62 are all not very far away. btu as soon as you get off the east lancs road and actually into kirkby it has the infastructure of a medium sized village. Goodison can be clear of cars with in half an hour, this project will be looking more towards three hours to clear people away as kirkby will become a no car zone.

so to summarise, yes kirkby will be one of the best served gounds to get to by road. but the car can only go so far, you will then have to wait for a bus from outside kirkby to take you to the stadium. they will need around 90 buses i think it was, doing two trips. we will have the biggest park and ride system in europe.

you are right thou, it would have been the same at the docks too. as will scotland road.


Now this I was not aware of...so the transportation argument from those who would prefer scotland road over kirkby does not carry too much weight if the transportation issue are the same or very similar. You don't hear that being mentioned too often...
  • 0

#28 iggy

iggy

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,081 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 08:31

Now this I was not aware of...so the transportation argument from those who would prefer scotland road over kirkby does not carry too much weight if the transportation issue are the same or very similar. You don't hear that being mentioned too often...


I wouldn't say that personally, a hell of a lot more people would be more likely to have used public transport into the city and walked it. That is unlikely to be the case with Kirkby.
  • 0

#29 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 08:59

True I can imagine there will be an extra hop in the transportation link to get to Kirkby but what I find amusing, and this happens all the time in any change, is that you only hear the information people/groups want you to hear when the proposed "other options" have the same pitfalls.
  • 0

#30 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 11:31

you say you only hear what these groups want you to hear, well you also only hear what the people at everton want you to hear. have they gone public about any of the transport issues? no. did they tell everyone the club will get the stadium for almost nothing? yes. did they eventually say it will cost £78m? yes.
its the same on both sides mate, dont think its just KEIOC spinning what they want people to hear, tesco kbc and everton have all been spinning this since day one. only it seems you believe thse people because they sit in ivory towers rather than the lads who sit with the rest of us but spend their time fighting for the truth.

if, heaven forbid, we end up in kirkby with a nice shiney new stadium we can afford to pay for, walking from outside the town boundaries because we cant park anywhere, your support for bk and kw will shine on, and maybe that alone will bring us back to the top.

or maybe we'll just lose this once great club.
  • 0

#31 carlmc25

carlmc25

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,086 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 12:11

any maybe Kenwright does, in actual fact, know what he's doing having been guided by experts rather than fans. Only time will tell.
  • 0

#32 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 12:16

his current guiding expert i business is mr wyness, who has a history that includes bankruptcy.
  • 0

#33 carlmc25

carlmc25

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,086 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 12:19

his current guiding expert i business is mr wyness, who has a history that includes bankruptcy.

I'm sure they would have paid experts in many fields to look at it, planning, building, finance, surely you don't think Kenwright just sat down and said hey 'Mr Wyness what do you think, we should move to Kirkby, ok then'...
  • 0

#34 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 12:23

i believe kenwright does what he thinks is best for the club, but i believe wyness does whats best for wyness.

kenwright isnt the bad guy, i just think he employed someone who has not been successfull in business for many years. and as ceo wyness is the man in charge of efc, and that is what worries me more than anything.
  • 0

#35 carlmc25

carlmc25

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,086 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 12:27

i believe kenwright does what he thinks is best for the club, but i believe wyness does whats best for wyness.

kenwright isnt the bad guy, i just think he employed someone who has not been successfull in business for many years. and as ceo wyness is the man in charge of efc, and that is what worries me more than anything.

I'm not saying you're wrong, to be honest I don't have a clue whether Kirkby is the best option or not! I just think the best thing to do is trust the club to make the right decision, if they do mess it up then obviously then have a go (some may say then it's too late, I know). I'm sure they know of the ill feeling towards the move and I'm sure they've explored every possibility. Hopefully in a few years we'll all look back and think nice one BK! :)
  • 0

#36 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 12:32

i dont think i do trust the club anymore. if we keep trusting them to do the right thing we would never have got rid of johnson years ago. we must question them, this is our club. they are there to serve us, the customer as wyness would call us. this man has been trusted with the club, and in recent years we have imporved on the pitch due to good work by dm and the board giving him the money, but to get that money we have got further and further into debt and sold all the clubs assets. scary times ahead i think.
  • 0

#37 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 13:20

Who mentioned KEIOC? Oh and nice to see the admission that KEIOC put spin on the stadium move too.
I may come across as anti-KEIOC but I am not, I am neither. I always look at all facts from the "outside" rather than picking a side and being blind to all information.

If we have the exact same stadium, exact same transportation "issues" on a site within the city boundaries there is no need for a group named KEIOC, it would be in the city. Would it get such negativity around the stadium quality if it is in the city?

Anyway, I think there is a split amongst fans and we will never agree (unless documents are leaked from somewhere with the facts to prove either theory/beliefs).
  • 0

#38 CraccerC

CraccerC

    Simão Sabrosa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,251 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 13:21

i'm not a KEIOC fan, and i was previously pro-kirkby, but the more i've researched the more i'm very much against it. as far as trusting the club is concerned, i lost that a long time ago.

Edited by CraccerC, 09 Jul 2008 - 13:21.

  • 0

#39 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 13:28

Who mentioned KEIOC? Oh and nice to see the admission that KEIOC put spin on the stadium move too.
I may come across as anti-KEIOC but I am not, I am neither. I always look at all facts from the "outside" rather than picking a side and being blind to all information.

If we have the exact same stadium, exact same transportation "issues" on a site within the city boundaries there is no need for a group named KEIOC, it would be in the city. Would it get such negativity around the stadium quality if it is in the city?

Anyway, I think there is a split amongst fans and we will never agree (unless documents are leaked from somewhere with the facts to prove either theory/beliefs).


im not with KEIOC or part of anything they do, but i hold lets of respect for what they are doing.

im not being blind to one side, ive researched as much as i can, from club spin and keioc spin and even the official docs given to kbc, ive based my opinions on what i believe is best for the club, the opinions of others who have built stadiums i.e croke park, coventrys face of a stadium. the fact that moving away from a growing city is bad for bussiness, the many financial constraints, the bad traffic state in kirkby.

as i have stated before, we would hva the same problems with scotland road, but the difference is the city centre can handle the extra congestion and has the space to expand if need be, that is not possible in kirkby, not to this scale anyway.
  • 0

#40 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 09 Jul 2008 - 18:35

you are right thou, it would have been the same at the docks too. as will scotland road.


I don't agree with you there Ste. Kings Dock from what I remember did have some traffic problems and Joe Anderson (the labour councillor) was very vocal about them. However I genuinely believe that Scotland Road is the best choice for Everton, I don't understand why you say that it will be on a par with problems at the Kings Dock.

Having said that, it's not very fair to say Kings Dock has problems at the moment. It's mainly to do with the fact that the nearest railway station is James Street (plans are underway to build a station near the arena) and that The Strand is under going major roadworks. Once these problems are rectified it may flow more easily. Don't forget the new bus depot is right by Albert Dock now so the problems wouldn't be that bad surely.


The biggest problem with Scotland Road as during the construction phase, the tunnel may need to be closed whilst building work goes on. After that it's plain sailing, there are five nearby railway stations and two bus depots and parking available in the city centre (including Pall Mall which doesn't usually open on weekends).


you say you only hear what these groups want you to hear, well you also only hear what the people at everton want you to hear. have they gone public about any of the transport issues? no. did they tell everyone the club will get the stadium for almost nothing? yes. did they eventually say it will cost £78m? yes.
its the same on both sides mate, dont think its just KEIOC spinning what they want people to hear, tesco kbc and everton have all been spinning this since day one. only it seems you believe thse people because they sit in ivory towers rather than the lads who sit with the rest of us but spend their time fighting for the truth.


The club have never admitted it, it's just in the planning documents.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users