Walton And Anfield Mp Peter Kilfoyle's Letter

[MikeO]

http://evertonfc.com/news/archive/letter-f...ilfoyle-mp.html

 

Everton Football Club have received a copy of a letter from Peter Kilfoyle, Member of Parliament for Walton.

 

The correspondence was addressed to Baroness Andrews OBE, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

 

The subject of the letter concerned the proposed Everton-Tesco development in Kirkby, and Mr Kilfoyle has given the club his permission to reproduce the letter in full...

 

Re: Proposed Everton FC - Tesco Development

 

Although this proposal is not in my constituency - nor even within my own local authority - I am the Member of Parliament within whose constituency Everton Football Club is currently based. Like many others, I take a view on the proposal.

 

The bottom line is this. Everton's only option for a new stadium - and they desperately need one, given the age, capacity and condition of the current one - is the Tesco option in Kirkby. Despite a great deal of hot air, there is no viable assistance from Liverpool City Council to assist Everton within their city boundaries.

 

Indeed, the city-region is already ahead of the country in the race to recession: Local surveys have shown a declining economic situation locally over the last two quarters, with a rapid deceleration particularly noticeable in the construction sector.

 

* The House Builders Association predict the loss of 100,000 jobs over the next two years.

* The Garden Festival Site project of house building, is being deferred by up to 18 months.

* There have been continued delays in the commencement of Liverpool F.C.'s new stadium. It is now ten years in gestation.

 

A massive development would be a timely boost to the local economy. The Tesco scheme offers a massive investment, attractive to many of my constituents (my constituency boundary is no more than 400 yards from the proposed site) both in terms of jobs and amenity. That is the bottom line for me. After all, there is no alternative on the table.

 

In the perfect world, Everton would stay roughly where it is, in a modern purpose built stadium. Frankly, this will not happen; nor has there been any meaningful support to that end for the club from Liverpool City Council. In the last ten years, it could only offer a proverbial pig in a poke - the abortive Kings Dock site which fell apart - at a great cost to the city - as soon as it came under scrutiny fro the North West Development Agency, and the European Commission. I have absolutely no faith in the City Council's institutional capacity for such a project in support of Everton F.C.

 

I would also like to nail one of the many myths bandied about concerning Everton and its present location. Councillors have said that there would be a hole left in the local economy if Everton's £51 million turnover was relocated to Kirkby. This is comic book economics. Everton's turnover has virtually no impact on Walton wherein it is situated. Most of it goes in salaries and related costs. None if this is spent locally. Neither players nor staff live locally. Indeed, international players repatriate much of their earnings to their county of origin.

 

The only businesses effected are fast food outlets and licensed premises - and then only marginally. For most of the season, the club might only play at home once a fortnight. There is virtually no impact on those businesses for the bulk of the time. Indeed, other businesses say that they might a well close (some do!) on match days, because of parking restrictions.

 

Arguments of regeneration are misleading in relation to Everton's place in my constituency. Its presence has arguably been an inhibiting factor in attempts to regenerate the area. At best, its role is neutral. The council obviously agrees. Otherwise, why would it have tried to relocate the club to the Kings Dock - further from my constituency that the proposed Kirkby site?

 

The club and Knowsley Council, together with Tesco, are well capable of making their own case for the proposal before you. What I wish to do - as an Everton supporter and as the club's present Member of Parliament - is to make you aware that the City Council's political posturing is just that. Their negativity cannot disguise their utter failure to provide any alternatives for Everton F.C. within the city. If their humbug leads to this proposal being called in, it will do a disservice to the people of Walton as well as the people of Kirkby.

 

Yours sincerely.

 

Peter Kilfoyle MP

[Louis]

What do you think about that Mike? An MP openly encouraging a business to leave his area? He mentions the club's turnover not effecting Walton yet neglects the £9million a year the club brings in to his area.

 

I think that the letter was written a while ago judging by the last sentence, it's interesting that it's been published on the official website.

[MikeO]

It's a bit bizarre....losing track here, was this always his view?

[Louis]

He opposed Kings Dock because Everton moving would tear the "heart out of the community".

 

On Kirkby it's been the opposite, he is of the opinion that Everton is a private business and can do what they like and he has also suggested that Walton will be better off without Everton there in the past.

[Everton_Worshiper]

To be honest, this is a strange. (Even from my views on this)

I guess the club have published the letter to show to the public that there is support for a move and coming from an MP bring a bit more weight. Also shows that there is further evidence that the city council have not helped Everton find a site within the city.

 

Where does the £9m get spent in the area? Do you mean on the local pubs, chippys etc??

[Louis]

I don't know, I imagine it comes from hospitality companies etc. It was in the planning application for Kirkby. It said that £9million brought into the area was "negligible" (and that Destination Kirkby would bring in £12million to Knowsley).

 

I found it interesting that he never actually said it would be for the good of the club. Equally he said "city-region" which leads me to believe this a few days/weeks old as that plan (Liverpool City Region) was knocked on the head by the secretary of state earlier this week.

 

Personally I'd be interested to know what LFC brings in and how they do it and compare it to Everton to see how Everton can improve.

 

At the end of the day Everton have been at Goodison Park for 130 years and is the fourth most successful team in the country and one of the top ten (five?) best teams in the country, if an Evertonian MP doesn't believe it's a beneficial to his area (he said it was "at best neutral") whilst supporting a rival clubs new stadium plans in the area then Everton are doing something seriously wrong.

 

Ian Ross said that Everton would be "good neighbours" to Knowsley residents, why can't the same be done in Walton?

 

It's worrying that the OS actually published an article that criticised the club for:

 

• bringing next to nothing to the economy
  
• not employing local people
  

because the local MP having no objections to EFC leaving to the area. I'm surprised they never published Derek Hatton's comments last week saying "Everton should move to Kirkby because Manchester United don't play in Manchester".

[Everton_Worshiper]

It's worrying that the OS actually published an article that criticised the club for:

 

• bringing next to nothing to the economy
  
• not employing local people
  

 

Have to admit I missed this from the letter and now you mention it, it is weird. Almost as if they are looking for reasons not to stay at Goodison rather than positives of moving.

 

I sent Ian Ross a sarcastic email about transfer funds being tied to the stadium and got a one liner back saying "they are NOT linked to the stadium" I truly don't believe that for one minute.

[carlmc25]

I don't know, I imagine it comes from hospitality companies etc. It was in the planning application for Kirkby. It said that £9million brought into the area was "negligible" (and that Destination Kirkby would bring in £12million to Knowsley).

 

I found it interesting that he never actually said it would be for the good of the club. Equally he said "city-region" which leads me to believe this a few days/weeks old as that plan (Liverpool City Region) was knocked on the head by the secretary of state earlier this week.

 

Personally I'd be interested to know what LFC brings in and how they do it and compare it to Everton to see how Everton can improve.

 

At the end of the day Everton have been at Goodison Park for 130 years and is the fourth most successful team in the country and one of the top ten (five?) best teams in the country, if an Evertonian MP doesn't believe it's a beneficial to his area (he said it was "at best neutral") whilst supporting a rival clubs new stadium plans in the area then Everton are doing something seriously wrong.

 

Ian Ross said that Everton would be "good neighbours" to Knowsley residents, why can't the same be done in Walton?

 

It's worrying that the OS actually published an article that criticised the club for:

 

• bringing next to nothing to the economy
  
• not employing local people
  

because the local MP having no objections to EFC leaving to the area. I'm surprised they never published Derek Hatton's comments last week saying "Everton should move to Kirkby because Manchester United don't play in Manchester".

I don't see why Everton would bring a great deal to the local community? Apart from fast food places and pubs I can't see how any other business would benefit, in fact the lack of parking on matchdays would probably have an adverse effect on many businesses. It's not as if tourists are going to come to Walton and start spending wads of cash, most of the money is spent in the stadium and the staff employed will be from any of the local areas not necessarily from Walton. I have no idea what his agenda is here, maybe quite simply he doesn't have one and you have to take what he says at face value. He possibly opposed the King's Dock as he knew it was never going to happen. McNulty's article on the bbc site made excellent reading as well, I agreed with all of that.

[rubecula]

He also claims to be an Evertonian as well as an MP. Surely if he was both he would want the club to remain in his constituency.

 

I suspect that that letter was written at least a month ago and probably more.

 

Besides he is a politician and I have never trusted them that much. (personal feelings)

[carlmc25]

He also claims to be an Evertonian as well as an MP. Surely if he was both he would want the club to remain in his constituency.

 

I suspect that that letter was written at least a month ago and probably more.

 

Besides he is a politician and I have never trusted them that much. (personal feelings)

Surely though people have to appreciate that there are only a limited number of people who know exactly what is going on, a lot of the reports and information will be confidential and we will only be getting to hear parts of the story, not all of it. With that in mind I think we just have to trust those who DO have all the information and reports to make the correct decisions. That's my take on it anyway.

[Louis]

Kilfoyle doesn't know whats going on though, he said the following in an email to one of his constituents today:

 

"I have repeatedly said - quoting EFC - that this is the only deal on the table.Its conditions I do not know;nor have I asked."

[Louis]

Warren Bradley has issued a response:

 

I write to you in total amazement having now read and digested your letter posted on the web.

 

I can honestly say during the protracted period that I and many other people have been working towards finding an alternative to the retail/leisure and football stadium development in Knowsley, you haven’t once been in touch wanting to discuss progress, or the lack of it according to your informant.

 

I am aware the only dialogue you have had locally has been with the former Chief Executive (Sir David Henshaw) of Liverpool City Council when you apparently gave your blessing to the scheme some years ago.

 

I can only glean from your sudden supportive statement, that the Secretary of State, Hazel Blears, is about to announce that the scheme won’t be called in and you are showing political support for such an ill informed crass decision; which will set a precedent, and leave many communities up and down the country rueing the short-sightedness of the decision.

 

I would comment on some of the ignorance in your letter;

 

“……..indeed the city-region is already ahead of the country in the race to recession.”

 

The Liverpool and City-region recession is not ahead of the country; the economy remains extremely buoyant, with the retail spend actually bucking the national trends. Developers are feeling the pinch and the obvious slow-down is beginning to bite, but not at a pace that exceeds the rest of the UK or internationally.

 

“Frankly, this will not happen; nor has there been any meaningful support to that end for the club from Liverpool City Council. In the last ten years, it could only offer a proverbial pig in a poke - the abortive Kings Dock site which fell apart - at a great cost to the city - as soon as it came under scrutiny fro the North West Development Agency, and the European Commission. I have absolutely no faith in the City Council's institutional capacity for such a project in support of Everton F.C.”

 

This demonstrates your absolute ignorance of what all the public and private partners hoped to achieve with the Kings Dock development, as they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and might I refer you to the Arena & Convention Centre now built and operating on the Kings Dock. The reason the Kings Dock scheme fell by the way side was due to Everton FC’s inability to raise the required sum of money to become a partner, (£35m). Not for some spurious reason that you have dreamt up, and then put on paper.

 

“ I would also like to nail one of the many myths bandied about concerning Everton and its present location. Councillors have said that there would be a hole left in the local economy if Everton's £51 million turnover was relocated to Kirkby. This is comic book economics. Everton's turnover has virtually no impact on Walton wherein it is situated. Most of it goes in salaries and related costs. None if this is spent locally. Neither players nor staff live locally. Indeed, international players repatriate much of their earnings to their county of origin.

The only businesses effected are fast food outlets and licensed premises - and then only marginally. For most of the season, the club might only play at home once a fortnight. There is virtually no impact on those businesses for the bulk of the time. Indeed, other businesses say that they might a well close (some do!) on match days, because of parking restrictions.”

 

The economy in and around the district centre of County Rd has remained viable owing to the presence of the football club; the local pubs, newsagents, takeaway’s and many other businesses rely heavily on the footfall from the home games, which I might add occur far more regularly than at your perceived fortnightly intervals during the season; most of these businesses employ local people, as do Everton FC, this again is something you have not researched.

 

The effect on the local economy will be massive; slowly but surely, if Everton FC do move, the whole area will witness a downturn. Please look around the rest of the city to witness the demise of the local district centres. Everton FC, whether you care to acknowledge it or not, have enabled the retail outlets to be sustained.

 

The club and Knowsley Council, together with Tesco, are well capable of making their own case for the proposal before you. What I wish to do - as an Everton supporter and as the club's present Member of Parliament - is to make you aware that the City Council's political posturing is just that. Their negativity cannot disguise their utter failure to provide any alternatives for Everton F.C. within the city. If their humbug leads to this proposal being called in, it will do a disservice to the people of Walton as well as the people of Kirkby.

 

Can I remind you that FOUR local councils have requested that this scheme be called in. All for salient planning policy issues, not humbug, I have from the outset offered real alternatives to the football club:

 

1. Redevelopment of Goodison Park

2. Tunnel Trumpet

3. Long Lane Industrial Est

4. Edge Lane

5. Joint Stadium

 

All tangible and deliverable with a modicum of foresight, and new investment?

 

Finally, I stated in the first paragraph of this letter, you have not once contacted me to discuss Everton FC’s proposals, yet you feel you can send such an ill informed letter at such a late stage looking to gain solace from it. I do firmly believe this letter will be held by many people and used against you; it is a desperate measure when an MP for an area, which has many of the issues Liverpool Walton has, actively supports the removal of a business as large and historic as Everton FC from his/her constituency, and looks to score cheap political points to deflect the enormity of his decision in supporting his Governments political precedence on Everton FC’s removal from the city.

 

Yours in dismay

 

 

 

 

Warren Bradley

Leader – Liverpool City Council

[rubecula]

Heavy stuff.

 

From that it looks like the battle lines have been drawn.

 

With luck, Warren Bradley will win this one, he seems to be better informed. But in politics who knows what will happen.

[StevO]

good work Mr Bradley, about time we heard something useful from you

[Louis]

I'm astonished at this from Everton's Ian Ross:

 

Mr Ross,

 

As an Everton fan I regularly visit the EFC website for news and information about the club etc; and it was during a visit today that I noticed the article concerning a letter from Peter Kilfoyle MP: which is what causes me to write to you today.

 

It is my belief that the image that is often portrayed in the media of EFC is not one that EFC would either choose or appreciate — it is certainly not a match for the image that I have of the club. Either way, I would expect that EFC would be at great pains to express the image it chooses for itself as often and as strongly as it can – especially in those areas where it has total control – namely its own website.

 

Nevertheless, EFC have chosen to re-print a letter from Mr Peter Kilfoyle MP which paints EFC in a very bad light — "Everton's only option for a new stadium – and they desperately need one..." followed by "Everton's turnover has virtually no impact on Walton...", in addition to "Its [EFC] presence has arguably been an inhibiting factor in attempts to regenerate the area. At best, its role is neutral.".

 

This article makes one wonder what benefit EFC brings to anybody in any capacity – in fact, perhaps the club should simply close, it would after all benefit Walton's attempts at regeneration ... according to Mr Kilfoyle. I can only wonder at why EFC have printed this letter at all – firstly, the vote to move has already been taken and (unless EFC are completely out of touch with its fanbase) EFC should be aware that there is little chance (or need) of changing the minds of the fans now; and secondly the letter itself paints EFC in such a negative light that this could hardly be considered good PR anyway – in addition to which it is only on the EFC website (for the present) so exactly whom is the target audience for this little message? Perhaps those few fans who do not wish the move to go ahead will be convinced by Mr Kilfoyle's arguments, all of which are strongly supported by facts and figures.

 

Is it the policy of the EFC PR department to represent EFC is as negative a light as possible? Does EFC hope to change the minds of the fan's who voted No to the move? Do EFC believe that this is positive PR?

 

Thank you in advance for your response to my questions.

 

Yours sincerely,

Rupert Sullivan

 

 

Rupert,

 

We printed the letter as, self-evidently, we are anxious to avoid a Government call-in on the Destination Kirkby project...as you will have noted, Peter Kilfoyle not only supports said project but also criticises the lack of aid/assistance/action from Liverpool City Council......sometimes we, as a football club, cannot say what it is we might care to say - so it is always useful to have someone credible and erudite willing to say it for you... Peter's comments are spot-on as far as I am concerned.

 

In my view the letter does NOT portray EFC is a negative light - it portrays LCC in a negative light.

 

Why would we be attempting to change the minds of those who voted against the move to Kirkby?? That would be pointless and futile; we are busy enough as it is.

 

Ian

 

Ian.

 

Although I can well understand that EFC do not wish the plans for the move to Kirkby to be 'called in' I must admit to being dubious of the impact gained from publishing a letter such as this on the EFC website. The letter will obviously be re-printed elsewhere, however the manner in which it is re-reported will be mainly beyond your control, and a letter from an MP saying that he doesn't want a football club in his constituency is hardly flattering I would have thought.

 

Although it is possible that should the project be 'called in' the portrayal of LCC as unhelpful (through third parties) could bring pressure to bear on them to provide further assistance in future; surely there is also a risk that EFC are burning their bridges? After all, even with the comments coming from Mr Kilfoyle, EFC have condoned them by publishing them: I fail to see how an alienated LCC helps EFC. Especially given that LCC could argue that they were not in a position to help because of the exclusivity deal which EFC signed and which to the best of my knowledge is still in force.

 

Thanks again for your attention, if you could please elaborate on this matter I would be very grateful.

 

Rupert Sullivan

 

 

we beg to differ......end of story really

 

ian

[rubecula]

Hmmm not very helpful was he?

 

Also I found the following article on the Blue Kipper site I am not sure if it is allowed on here but if not I can edit it out at your request.

 

Blues Shareholders Mark Grayson and Tony Bennett are believed to have acquired 20% of Shareholders support to call an EGM to get some answers over the Blues future. The proposed new Stadium, the debt at the Club and the lack of investment on the pitch are some of the issues the Shareholders believe need addressing. Answers are needed and the Blues hierarchy have twenty eight days to answer their request, and another twenty eight days to hold the EGM.

 

Blues Shareholder Mark Grayson says: "Our primary concern is that we feel that the club promised a world class and effectively free stadium with the best transport links in the UK. We now know through the Tesco led planning application that the stadium will only be a 'mid level quality' stadium that could add a further £78m on to the existing debt of the club. Clearly the proposals do not reflect what the club promised prior to consulting fans on the issue.

 

We are concerned that the proposals may be detrimental to the long term welfare of the club and we fail to see how these proposals will generate increased and sustainable revenue to support the manager and team building. We are concerned that the club will face an uncertain future should we relocate to Kirkby and believe that the proposed relocation is fraught with tremendous risk for very little return."

[Louis]

No problem posting that here

 

I'm fully in favour of the EGM.

[Louis]

I really don't like Kilfoyle.

 

That this House notes the positive support extended to Everton Football Club by Knowsley District Council; compares it to the failure of Liverpool City Council to offer any realistic sites for a new stadium to Everton F.C.; and calls upon Liverpool City Council to provide meaningful support to this local, national and international icon of the footballing arts.

 

 

Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...dm/70614e01.htm

 

He describes Everton as a "local, national and international icon of the footballing arts" yet can't wait for this icon to leave his constituency because he believes it contributes nothing to the local economy.

[rubecula]

The word hypocritical springs to mind a bit after reading some of his stuff. He seems (at least to me) to change his stance with every statement he makes.

 

Is he like this in all fields or is it just EFC he is confusing the issue with?

 

Sorry, perhaps this is the wrong forum to go down that road.

 

I just wish I knew what was going on in his head.