Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Louis

Everton Board Close Up Shop

Recommended Posts

Everton are changing their Articles of Association after the recent EGM was called because of the Kirkby stadium project.

 

The board (who own 73%) now require 10% of the shareholding to call an EGM instead of the previous 20% shareholders requirement. In basic terms, they've raised the number of shares needed to call an EGM from 250 to 3,650.

 

Former directors Arthur Abercromby and Lord Grantchester own 16% between them which leaves 11% to the minority shareholders rendering them pretty much useless.

 

People's Club indeed, pah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everton are changing their Articles of Association after the recent EGM was called because of the Kirkby stadium project.

 

The board (who own 73%) now require 10% of the shareholding to call an EGM instead of the previous 20% shareholders requirement. In basic terms, they've raised the number of shares needed to call an EGM from 250 to 3,650.

 

Former directors Arthur Abercromby and Lord Grantchester own 16% between them which leaves 11% to the minority shareholders rendering them pretty much useless.

 

People's Club indeed, pah!

 

OK appreciate your comments on this one Louis and for once I agree, can we really maintain the "People's Club" motto?

On the flip side, Everton are protecting their interests. If the situation stayed the same then the slightest upset amongst fans and the same shareholders would voted for the EGM this time may vote the same again just out of "spite" rather than genuine concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to give a fair side of things from Everton:

 

The Club required – and has now attained – signed copies of the resolution from shareholders holding in excess of 75 per cent of the total voting rights of eligible members. Accordingly, the resolution has been passed, bringing Everton Football Club into line with the vast majority of professional English football clubs.

Hardly "shutting up shop".

 

It was made clear to us that a section of our shareholders would continue to petition, every few weeks, for General Meetings until they won the right to hold a hand-vote on the future of the Destination Kirkby project – something which the Club insisted at last week’s meeting it was unwilling to consider."

^^ So Everton think the same way as me :)

 

“Preparing for, and subsequently staging, a General Meeting is expensive and very, very time-consuming. Put simply, it distracts us from the day-to-day running of the football club. If we were to be repeatedly found to be washing our dirty laundry in public, the damage to the Club’s reputation would be simply enormous."

Very good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the board members themselves own 73% of the 75% they would need, i get the feeling that it is without a shadow of doubt, an obvious case of "shutting up shop".

 

There is no way they want to throw another vote open to the supporters, now that an awfull lot more is known about "The deal of the century". :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" I said there is a feeling in the football club that communications are not good. I want an open door policy and all the different factions about this, about everything. It's an emotional issue, which should be listened to and supported. " - Bill Kenwright, six days ago.

 

All they needed was Arthur Abercromby to agree in addition, he owned 8% of the club too and is a close friend to the board, he's a former board director.

 

Plus the second EGM proposal had little to do with the stadium. I posted it the other day, it was mainly about the running of the club. It's now been indefinitely put on hold unless Grantchester agrees to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" I said there is a feeling in the football club that communications are not good. I want an open door policy and all the different factions about this, about everything. It's an emotional issue, which should be listened to and supported. " - Bill Kenwright, six days ago.

 

All they needed was Arthur Abercromby to agree in addition, he owned 8% of the club too and is a close friend to the board, he's a former board director.

 

Plus the second EGM proposal had little to do with the stadium. I posted it the other day, it was mainly about the running of the club. It's now been indefinitely put on hold unless Grantchester agrees to it.

 

 

Louis, I totally agree with you it is very wrong, people should be able to have their say mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just taking a cruise through 606 and the people on there are naturally blaming KEIOC.

 

This is a bad move, once the majority see what the board has done, Dirty Linen Public Hanging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I make a point that this could be a big step in paving the way for a takeover. It's just dawned on me after reading simiar threads that no-one really knows why we aren't attracting any investors.

 

"The Club required – and has now attained – signed copies of the resolution from shareholders holding in excess of 75 per cent of the total voting rights of eligible members. Accordingly, the resolution has been passed, bringing Everton Football Club into line with the vast majority of professional English football clubs."

 

If we really have been operating with out of sync with the rest of the premiership, then the club effectively nullifying any potential trouble maker for a potential buyout would certainly seem rational. It also means that if bought out, the investor would then have the luxury to run the club as they saw fit and may tempt investment in. Not sure if this would necessarily be good, but who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're maybe reading to much into it, I read it as "We're not the only ones who do this".

 

Possibly Louis, it won't be the first time I've been accused of that. I have just become rather sceptical of what we get to hear about. Almost everything we hear nowadays is given to us with some sort of spin, whether positive or negative, and wouldn't surprise me to find out about a number of reasons this could have been done.

 

It will all come out in the wash though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why, shouldn't they be?

 

KEIOC didnt call for the EGM, it was two shareholders who did. so no, they shouldnt be blamed. it seems to me the are being jumped on just like BK has been. KEIOC havent even been mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KEIOC didnt call for the EGM, it was two shareholders who did. so no, they shouldnt be blamed. it seems to me the are being jumped on just like BK has been. KEIOC havent even been mentioned.

 

My how the tables have turned, do KEIOC not like the negative publicity that is potentially "unfairly" being placed on them? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My how the tables have turned, do KEIOC not like the negative publicity that is potentially "unfairly" being placed on them? :)

 

 

well dk was called in for breaking rules regarding its retail development. Not because KEIOC asked it to be called in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My how the tables have turned, do KEIOC not like the negative publicity that is potentially "unfairly" being placed on them? :)

 

how is that even the same? was the bad press keioc game everton unfair when the club were lying to the fans? or are you happy EFC LIED TO YOU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how is that even the same? was the bad press keioc game everton unfair when the club were lying to the fans? or are you happy EFC LIED TO YOU?

 

One mans lie is another's spin Steve. Basically the problem has been that the dissenters found a loop hole which the board have moved to plug. I regret the restriction in freedom of speech but it doesn't surprise me at all. Imagine them reading postings made on these websites to the effect that some would keep on calling EGM's, all they have to say is look at the vote (whether you agree with it or not that is the legal position as recorded by the club's records) the excuse being that this move prevents unnecessary cost to the company.

 

Just look at Newcastle, the Toon army (that always makes me laugh) are supposedly planning this that an the other at the weekend trying to get Ashley out, they will lose as he has the law on his side.

 

I regret the passing of fair and open debate thus in my book this must be a black mark against the club, trouble with that is that they don't read my book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not one who goes along with conspiracy theories, but after reading some of the opinions in here I think that some folks do believe that there is something conpirational going on.

 

To be honest, and this is my own opinion, I think a lot of things are being unsaid simply in order to conduct business. I feel it will all be in the open when things are sorted.

 

That is not to say I agree with it though. Like most folks I would love to know exactly what is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool Echo's taken on events:

 

Everton EGM ruling: Grounds to make a point

 

Sep 12 2008 by David Prentice, Liverpool Echo

 

EVERTON are the self-styled People’s Club.

 

But they clearly don’t believe in power to the people.

 

The Blues changed their articles of association this week. That’s a wordy way of saying that 10 per cent of the club’s total shareholding must now move for an EGM, rather than the previous five per cent.

 

It’s legal, it’s hard-nosed, but it’s hardly democratic.

 

“We are simply putting ourselves into line with our contemporaries,” said acting CEO Robert Elstone.

 

Which is fine. But Everton can’t claim to be different any more.

 

The decision to ballot fans on a ground move was a brave one – and still unique.

 

But results revealing 59.27% in favour, 40.73% against showed a sizeable minority were opposed to the idea.

 

Some of those shareholders want the opportunity to re-confirm that opposition.

 

“It was made clear to us that a section of our shareholders would continue to petition, every few weeks, for General Meetings until they won the right to hold a hand vote on the future of the Destination Kirkby project,” added Elstone.

 

Why is a hand vote so unpalatable?

 

These are the customers the Blues hope to entice to a new stadium, so why not let them display their dissatisfaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, the echo not being biased towards the club for once! how did that get past the editors eyes?

 

i will say i was happy to read today that the club will be meeting KEIOC to discuss their plans for GP and to discuss transport issues (though they are saying transport issues are down to KBC but EFC must take some responsibility for transport if they actually want the fasn to get their) hopefully the meeting will go smoothly and something may come out of it. they also invited LCC to bring an offer to the table, but stated they will respond however possible under the exclusivity agreement, not sure what that means exactly. it seems they are finally ready to consider other options should kirkby fall through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very cautious over the club's intentions with regards to the meeting it to be honest. It could either be a genuine meeting or they want some filler for the public inquiry - as it stands Everton have done very little with regards to alternative sites and I imagine the government will be keen to know why.

 

Stadium plans took a further blow this morning when Liverpool One (a Destination Kirkby rival) announced they had to make some stores rent-free for an initiial period to get shops in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm very cautious over the club's intentions with regards to the meeting it to be honest. It could either be a genuine meeting or they want some filler for the public inquiry - as it stands Everton have done very little with regards to alternative sites and I imagine the government will be keen to know why.

 

Stadium plans took a further blow this morning when Liverpool One (a Destination Kirkby rival) announced they had to make some stores rent-free for an initiial period to get shops in.

 

Louis, you'll never get them to roll over mate so be happy with what you've got. If the Indian takes over you won't get that mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Louis, you'll never get them to roll over mate so be happy with what you've got. If the Indian takes over you won't get that mate

 

Point well made. Can't imagine Abu Dhabi United, Abramovic or Liverpool or Unted's Yanks agreeing to meet the fans :) .

 

And Louis, does the enquiry remit extend to the possibility of alternative sites? I'd have thought it would investigate purely and simply the merits of Kirkby :huh: ?

 

If you apply for planning permission for a house they say "yes" or "no," not "why haven't you thought of building it somewhere else?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim/Mike, my problems is not with the club requesting another meeting - it is their intentions. Look at the link on the official site, the only two comments allowed to pass the moderators are anti-Goodison Redevelopment. They even had the cheek to big up their presentation as "compelling". ;)

 

My understanding of it is Everton have said we need to move to Kirkby because:

 

*there will be £52million retail enabling money

*the club can't afford a new stadium on their own

*there were no alternative sites available in Liverpool

*Goodison Park can't be redeveloped.

 

It is up to the public to quash these claims to prove that that the material considerations put in place to support the stadium going ahead are nonsense with valid reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim/Mike, my problems is not with the club requesting another meeting - it is their intentions. Look at the link on the official site, the only two comments allowed to pass the moderators are anti-Goodison Redevelopment. They even had the cheek to big up their presentation as "compelling". ;)

 

My understanding of it is Everton have said we need to move to Kirkby because:

 

*there will be £52million retail enabling money

*the club can't afford a new stadium on their own

*there were no alternative sites available in Liverpool

*Goodison Park can't be redeveloped.

 

It is up to the public to quash these claims to prove that that the material considerations placed on the stadium going ahead are nonsense with valid reasons.

 

 

Louis, and I mean this in the niciest possible way, mate but you are in danger of turning your campaign into a vendetta. You and your mates have won more than ground than you should have done, there comes a time to put the ball away. We all want the best for our team/club, others just want slightly different to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly jim, we all want whats best for the club. is kirkby whats best for the club in the long term or just the easiest option? we cant live by the club crest of only the best is good enough, and at the same time submit planning for "a mid-level stadium".

 

LCC have made it crystal that they are willing to discuss staying in the city, architects have detailed plans showing the GP can be improved upon to the standard we need.

 

the only thing we all want jim, is for the club to look at the other options before going for a quick fix. this is the most important decision since 1892, we cant just take the cheapest option with out looking at what else we can do first.

 

if after LCC show a proposal, skemptons plans have been proven not usable, and kirkby is the only option left then im sure the fire will go out. but right now, while the lies KW gave us have come out into the open, kirkby can not be "deal of the century" anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer my question Louis (which was a serious one....wasn't being sarcastic), does the enquiry take other options into account?

 

Also we keep coming back to this "mid-level" stadium argument, without any mention or reference point (as far as I've seen) as to how "mid-level" is defined.

 

What's "high-level?" Wembley certainly, Old Trafford and the Emirates yes but after that?

 

No point at all in us building a 75,000 capacity top of the range place because we'd not fill it.

 

If "mid-range" means "mid quality" that's another thing but size isn't eveything....as my wife always assures me :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, I beg to differ with the making ground comment but the latter two points I'd agree with and as the public inquiry hasn't even started yet it's not the time to throw the towel in. :) You are more than welcome to explain why you believe the ground move should go ahead, Everton_Worshipper frequently does!

 

Mike - I thought I had. I don't know if it's within its remit to say "well you should have built on there instead" but the point I tried to make was that Everton have made several "material considerations" to support the stadium which include that there are no alternative sites that are viable - this can be disputed by people so it is related to this public inquiry.

 

Mid-range, Philip McNulty of the BBC wrote this:

 

"The main bones of contention are that they feel the new 50,000-seater stadium is not what was paraded in the original brochure - not effectively free but now costing Everton £78m, and falling into the "mid-range" quality of arena."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/philmcnulty/200..._for_conce.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The main bones of contention are that they feel the new 50,000-seater stadium is not what was paraded in the original brochure - not effectively free but now costing Everton £78m, and falling into the "mid-range" quality of arena."

 

I'm not questioning the fact that it's been described as "mid-range," I'm just saying that it's a completely meaningless description unless you give it some sort of terms of reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not questioning the fact that it's been described as "mid-range," I'm just saying that it's a completely meaningless description unless you give it some sort of terms of reference.

 

I agree, the definition of not good enough or not suitable is always going to be of the person making the statement.

If the person/group making the statement came out and said it if mid quality because the grade of steel is sub standard, there are only 2 toilets instead of 3 then they would have some weight behind their claims.

 

Jimmy, certain groups have long turned this into a vendetta. I am not entirely against a certain opposition group to the move but the very nature of what they called themselves shows (to me and a lot of Evertonians I speak to) they are not looking at the best for Everton as a club but more on the location and they have got carried away with the mud slinging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, the definition of not good enough or not suitable is always going to be of the person making the statement.

If the person/group making the statement came out and said it if mid quality because the grade of steel is sub standard, there are only 2 toilets instead of 3 then they would have some weight behind their claims.

Jimmy, certain groups have long turned this into a vendetta. I am not entirely against a certain opposition group to the move but the very nature of what they called themselves shows (to me and a lot of Evertonians I speak to) they are not looking at the best for Everton as a club but more on the location and they have got carried away with the mud slinging.

 

the person/group making this claim is EFC, in their planning application they frequently use the words mid-level stadium. not to do with size as 50,000 cant be called mid-level in size, it is to do with the quality. you can find the application on the KBC website i believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Louis, Steve, Goodison is out dated, it was state of the art fifty tears ago and remains state of the art for fifty years ago. The very day LCC allowed the shite to build in Stanley Park meant we had to move, how can we attract youngsters to support us when they have permission to build a theatre of dreams that will cast an eternal shadow over the old lady.

 

We are not a rich club, absolute fact that the world knows quite well so to move anywhere we need help, Tesco's gave us that life line. In my book it is criminal to want to remain at Goodison, it shows a total lack of business acumen to wish to remain in a dilapidated ground whilst the shite expand further. The new ground is within 5 miles of the old one, some how that distance has developed into a light year if you read some articles that have been put out. As for the stadium falling into a mid range category, you buy what you can afford mate otherwise we will be further up the spout. The fact that the ground is in Kirkby would make our ancestors laugh their heads off, Goodison was outside Liverpool when it was built so I really couldn't give a fuck where any new ground is, as long as we have one, that must take priority over everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jimmy, why should what liverpool do have any say in what we do? we shouldnt have to move because their stadium will be bigger or better. to me the issue isnt that its in kirkby, because kirkby is a lot closer to me than walton. the issue for me is the transport problem, cant park in kirkby, and cant ship people in and out of kirkby fast enough. im not happy that we want to settle for second best as its all we can afford right now. if we cant afford to get a stadium to suit the stature of our great club right now, then we should wait until we can afford the relevant stadium. i dont care where it is, id rather not leave liverpool ideally, but we didnt settle for second best with the work done to Goodison in the last 100 years, why settle for that now? if we do settle for second best, we need to change the club crest. only what we can afford right now is good enough. even though we cant afford it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimmy, why should what liverpool do have any say in what we do? we shouldnt have to move because their stadium will be bigger or better. to me the issue isnt that its in kirkby, because kirkby is a lot closer to me than walton. the issue for me is the transport problem, cant park in kirkby, and cant ship people in and out of kirkby fast enough. im not happy that we want to settle for second best as its all we can afford right now. if we cant afford to get a stadium to suit the stature of our great club right now, then we should wait until we can afford the relevant stadium. i dont care where it is, id rather not leave liverpool ideally, but we didnt settle for second best with the work done to Goodison in the last 100 years, why settle for that now? if we do settle for second best, we need to change the club crest. only what we can afford right now is good enough. even though we cant afford it anyway.

 

Steve, if you own a snack bar the last thing you want next door is a Macdonalds, the kids go to Macdonalds and the parents follow them. That would be our future, the snack bar mate. If Moyes is to spend in the fashion he has then we have to go for this stadium as we have to move, to wait for a Rolls Royce means we will be waiting forever and losing money in between time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im suprised to be honest, as a "senior" evertonian, hope you dont take that badly, as most older fans stand by only the best being good enough.

 

but this is the problem, it is your opinion he should want to stay at Goodison - well not move to Kirkby - and the fact is that is not the case with a lot of fans. When will it sink in....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im suprised to be honest, as a "senior" evertonian, hope you dont take that badly, as most older fans stand by only the best being good enough.

 

Steve most of the lads my age also want to move and we have pals who over the years have their ashes scattered on the ground. We older folk are also practical and that is what the club need to be at the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is the whole transport issue that keeps raising it's head. Does anyone really think that the Everton board and Tesco haven't considered the car parking, travel implications? Why on Earth would Everton want to build a brand new stadium if we could only fill about 10000 seats due to the travel, we'd go bankrupt and fast. These guys are businessmen, they have brains. They may not have revealed a lot of the transport plans because they are politically sensitive etc, who knows (except the board). I work for one of the biggest organisations and employers in Liverpool and the management here don't even tell their staff everything, never mind the customers or the general public yet some fans expect the Everton board to go through every minute detail step by step as if we're all business partners. Some information is always confidential, discussions are always ongoing and promises made before they are totally ratified and can be announced officially. I think only time will tell whether Kirkby is the right thing to do, but at the moment I think it's the only thing to do - unless we get taken over by a mega billionaire, which most experts seem to agree won't happen until we get a new stadium. The groundshare will never happen as Liverpool will never (ever) go for it and redeveloping Goodison is too expensive.

 

edit: I can understand if people object due to the whole moving away from the city centre angle (although Walton is hardly a thriving community and Goodison was built outside the boundary originally, maybe LCC can take over KBC?!) as this is a bit of a worry whereby Liverpool could brand themselves as the only club in the city etc. I think there is a little fear about moving away from the city centre with everyone involved, us - the fans, the board, Bill Kenwright, and I think that fear is what is driving a lot of the anti Kirkby people but that fear is being dressed up as concerns over transport, quality of stadium when in reality it's coming down to one thing - the stadium will be in Kirkby. I have some fears it may all go wrong, but at the moment I think it is the only viable option and trust in those responsible to make it a success.

 

reading that again that may have seemed a little patronising, it wasn't meant to be read that way - just my outlook on things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

carl - they have released the transport plans. hence them being a big concern. its all in the planning application. it will be a struggle, but we'll just have to wait and see

 

and i dont care about it being in kirkby, its the whole plan i dont like. i actually like the stadium design, its the long term problems im more concerned with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carl - they have released the transport plans. hence them being a big concern. its all in the planning application. it will be a struggle, but we'll just have to wait and see

 

and i dont care about it being in kirkby, its the whole plan i dont like. i actually like the stadium design, its the long term problems im more concerned with.

 

Steve, no matter how well things are planned something will go wrong, its the nature of the beast. I appreciate your main concern over the trains, it is a valid point but if Kirkby itself is to expand that track needs doubling up and I'm sure European money could be found for that. At present Analfield is poorly served by trains but it is not a problem for them.

 

In my book we just don't have time to prevaricate, we must grasp the nettle now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, EU or even local funding is not likely for the line because it's not used enough to warrant it.

 

The station currently is used aprox 640,000 times a year. Add in 25 events (aproximate number of home games per season) each with 5,000 (optimistic forecasted numbers) people and it's 'only' 765,000, if Headbolt Lane station gets the go ahead the number will decrease because it means those in Tower Hill would use that station instead.

 

Also Kirkby is the terminus for the Northern line, it joins onto the the same line that Ormskirk and Southport use further down. Frequency of trains is capped at 4 per hour (maximum of 6 carriages) unless Merseytravel decide they want to add new lines in Kirkby where trains can be stored and temporarily cancel Southport and Ormskirk services to cater for the stadium. That is very unlikely. Sefton Council and West Lancashire wouldn't be very happy that their services had been reduced to cater for a stadium in another borough, think about it ;)

 

A £3.7million upgrade is required for the station to meet the minal standards necessary for a rail station serving a major events stadium. The upgrade doesn't include additional tracks or platforms.

 

I think one possibility would be to expand to Walton station to a similar style as Liverpool South Parkway meaning it catered for Kirkby line and Ormskirk lines (and made Rice Lane redundant because they're so close), but even then frequency of trains is still limited and when you consider Liverpool South parkway cost £30million to build, any new line between Walton and Kirkby would cost 'mega money' and again the upgrade of Kirkby station in addition to justify the stadium. The upgrade of rail infrastructure would cost more than the stadium and as there is no funding available, it would be up to the club to upgrade it and they couldn't afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A survey in 2003 suggested that the number of home fans who use the rail to get to Goodison Park is about 4,200. The forecasted numbers for Kirkby is slightly higher (around 4,260).

 

I want to make clear that the capacity for Kirkby is LOCKED at 3,840 per hour. If the amount of people who wanted to use a rail service could use a rail service regardless of the capacity ceiling, demand would be a lot higher than the forcasted 4,260. It's because of the location of station (i.e. terminus on periphery of Merseyside) that more buses, coaches and taxis are needed to make the plan look viable on paper.

 

To put the figure of 4,260 into perspective, a stadium in East Perth is currently being planned. They have four sites available for a 60,000 seater. Compare how they plan to make their stadiums work compared to Kirkby:

 

http://www.majorstadiataskforce.com.au/get...mp;ObjectID=215 (page 2)

 

The lowest number of spectators travelling by rail across the four sites is 20,760. Almost five times as many. Although bare in mind it is for a 60,000 capacity stadium, not 50,000 as Kirkby is, a better target would be 1/3 of supporters travelling by rail (16,000+), Kirkby still falls short dramatically.

 

Kirkby Plan for home supporters
Car / van 55% 26,071
Train 9% 4,266
Walk / Cycling 3% 1,422
Scheduled bus 18% 8,532
Coach / mini bus 12% 5,688
Taxi 3% 1,422
TOTAL 100% 47,401

 

Are you talking about Goodison with these regards to Sandhills, Maghull and Ormskirk?

 

There's already a shuttle bus service from Sandhills (Soccer Bus)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On asaturday I leave to get the match at 1:30... I get to Goodison around 2:30. I travel via train to Sandhills and get the soccerbus...

 

Are you suggesting Louis that all 4200 fans travel in 1 single hour to get the football...... just a point to consider...

 

do you know what the figures are for car travel and "walk up" at Goodison??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm not saying that DM, I said above.. the capacity at the station is limited to 3,840 per hour and Everton's consultants are saying around 4,260 in total will travel by train to Kirkby stadium. That's around 70 people more in total than currently travel by rail to Goodison Park despite there being 8,000 or 9,000 more home fans expected at Kirkby.

 

Again less home fans are expected to walk to the stadium in Kirkby than they do to Goodison Park despite 8,000 or 9,000 more home fans expected at Kirkby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not saying that DM, I said above.. the capacity at the station is limited to 3,840 per hour and Everton's consultants are saying around 4,260 in total will travel by train to Kirkby stadium. That's around 70 people more in total than currently travel by rail to Goodison Park despite there being 8,000 or 9,000 more home fans expected at Kirkby.

 

Again less home fans are expected to walk to the stadium in Kirkby than they do to Goodison Park despite 8,000 or 9,000 more home fans expected at Kirkby.

 

 

What I am saying is that fans can travel to the other stations and be ferried in by bus just as they do at Sandhills, where there's a will there's a way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not disputing that Jim, if there were enough buses in the area and enough drivers in the area it would be possible.

 

This is how stands for each home game (from home to a stadium). These figures are official by the way.

 

  • Up to 115 coaches will be required to take 5,750 fans to the stadium and home again later. The maximum needed in 2006/2007 was 29 (average was 19).
  • A minimum of 63 park and ride buses (maximum of 88)
  • A minimum of 75 match day local bus services (maximum of 102)
  • Taxis to make 475 trips (apparently on average, each taxi will have three people per cab so this deals with 1,425 fans before the game and 1,425 fans after the game).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the figures don't matter, we'll all be able to get there no problem. we can park and walk five minutes to the ground, and all three of the Kirkby access roads, well two after valley road has been shut on match days leaving m57 and east lancs, will suddenly be able to accommodate for us all. forget the official numbers from efc. kbc and the bus companies, because even though these groups have released these numbers, KEIOC have somehow managed to make them worse. somehow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hope you know im kidding Louis, im firmly on your side of the fence. you know the problems i have with it, i have faith that LCC will put forward some sort of plan, if bradley doesnt manage it i have more faith in anderson and the people behind him to bring us an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×