Stadium Info

[Louis]

Thanks for the clarification DM. I don't believe our points of view are a million miles away - even if you do have a red avatar !

 

I would also like to see Everton have a stadium befitting that of the club's stature (with cold booze available!). I've personally never said that Kirkby is wrong because it is in Knowsley (i.e. not Liverpool), I've said that I don't believe Kirkby can cope with the demands of a 50,000 stadium.

 

If Everton had exhausted all other possibilities for a new stadium/redevelopment and then decided that Kirkby was ultimately the only site available, I'd reluctantly accept it. I do not believe that this has been done.

 

My understanding is that proof for alternative sites and their suitability will be in the public domain following the public inquiry.

 

With regards to the cost of redeveloping Goodison, I too believe that it would cost more to do in the long run but in the short term it can more than match the capacity for Kirkby. The advantages as I see it are the club would be taking less risk and borrowing a smaller amount to redevelop a stand - whether the club want to expand the Park End, add another tier to the Bullens Road, rotate the ground after obtaining the nearby houses is entirely up to them. The council leader has been on national television/radio and said that he would do everything possible to keep EFC in the area even close down the Gwladys Street school and relocate Walton Motors, as a fan I'd have liked the club to have called his bluff very early on.

 

I havn't called anyone liars (I don't think!?), I've pointed out that Deloitte say the stadium will bring in £6m a year and the Everton CEO and former CEO have said upwards of £10million. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

I've got mixed opinions on 'Mr Everton'. On the hand the club has only made a profit under his guidance once or twice in 9 years and debts have increased. On the other hand the playing team has improved. If the £52million that Everton are to be given is to be taken at face value, the club's value will be increased by the same amount and as a result so will his shareholding - whether he wishes to sell his shares if the stadium goes through is up to him - and also up to the buyer and how much he is willing to pay despite the on paper £52million value rise.

 

Your comments on football stadium value are very interesting, this is entirely something I agree with but Keith Wyness said that the stadium will cost £130m but will have a value of £150m. It's exactly like you've said, it's not a house and no one would substantially more than the construction cost for it. The problem is that the debt would be secured against the stadium before (as has happened with Goodison Park now) before the players need to be sold to balance the books.

[Louis]

A few more documents have been made public:

 

This is a bit damning from Mark McVicar (Cushman and Wakefield).

 

http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/resources/23492...idence_list.doc

 

14.0 Stadium Costs

 

14.1 There have been a number of football clubs that have relocated or expanded their ground facilities over the last decade including some in the North West, and a number of other new stadium developments for different sports.

 

14.2 I understand that Swansea City’s new football ground cost circa £30 million, Reading’s new ground cost circa £35 million to build and Bolton’s new ground cost circa £40 million. All were developed at different times but that relates to an average cost in 2008 prices (applying inflation) of some £1,500 per seat. That suggests it may be possible to build a new premiership football stadium of say 50,000 seats for in the region of £75 million, including design and build fees.

 

14.3 It is appreciated that the current design proposals may indeed cost more than that. No doubt Everton aspire to a level of quality of facility over and above a number of its fellow premiership clubs (despite on their submission lacking the financial ability to pay for it). That is not to say such a level of quality and

provision is essential for the success of the football club because clearly that is not a view taken by other clubs with which it competes.

 

14.4 I refer to the first team’s results set out on page 30 of the Everton Football Club 2007 Annual report, attached as Appendix MM15, and I note that with the exception of Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and Newcastle away fixtures, no other fixture, home or away, exceeded the game capacity of Everton’s current ground. From this evidence it is not clear why Everton need a new stadium of 50,000- 60,000 seat capacity to compete in the Premier League.

 

14.5 Even allowing for further cost price inflation for delayed construction it would seem, at face value, possible to reduce the costs of the stadium and consequently reduce the level of “enabling development” required to pay for it.

 

14.6 It also, seems to me, upon Everton’s own evidence, that it may in fact be possible to pay for a new stadium of 50,000 seats without any cost subsidy from commercial development should it be able to raise the finance it suggests it is able to do.

[MikeO]

How can you possibly take seriously someone who says something as obviously stupid as...

 

I note that with the exception of Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and Newcastle away fixtures, no other fixture, home or away, exceeded the game capacity of Everton’s current ground.

 

Can he please explain just how it would be possible for any home game to have exceeded the current ground capacity ?

 

In fact the only games that his argument could possibly apply to other than the ones mentioned are at Villa, City and Sunderland....are we responsible for them not selling out?

 

The question of filling a bigger ground is a good one....I'd hate to see huge open spaces in the ground a la 'Boro...but make the argument in a sensible way for God's sake .

[DangerMouse]

without knowing if Mark McVicar is for or against the project.... It sounds as if hes making an argument for a smaller project undertaking....

 

ie if the plan is knocked back for being to large.......

 

Must admit I couldnt see the point of moving if the capacity was to be any lower than 50K.... and without Tesco.... which is a major part of the argument for going ahead with Kirkby.... im sad to say id rather stay at Goodison

 

Time will tell

Edited November 7, 2008 by DangerMouse

[Louis]

The company who is about to spend £350m on Skelmersdale have said they will not do it if the Kirkby project is given the go ahead. That's a pretty huge news.

 

Skelmersdale are above Kirkby in the for 'retail area ranking league' and the Skem plans are not against planning policy (whilst Destination Kirkby is) so it'll be interesting to see what decision is made ! Both towns have similar populations.

 

9.17 It also undermines, and would effectively halt, the private sector investment in

Skelmersdale. Evidence has been produced by St Modwen to demonstrate that,

should the proposal get consent in Kirkby, then this would effectively prevent any

future town centre investment in Skelmersdale. Not only would this prevent the

creation of new retail units, but it would also stop the creation of new high quality

public realm and community facilities such as a new wet and dry leisure centre,

library, police station and Ecumenical Centre. The people of Skelmersdale should

also expect a good evening economy in a town of that size and the Kirkby proposal

would also stop investment in new restaurants and cafes, and a cinema, as this

needs to be funded through the wider regeneration scheme. These are all facilities

that Skelmersdale is crying out for.

 

9.18 It is clear from Mrs. Taylor’s evidence that St Modwen will withdraw from the

scheme if Kirkby Town Centre gets planning consent. The reason for this is that

the scheme in Skelmersdale is a traditional new town centre, with shops fronting a

traditional high street. In comparison the proposal in Kirkby is more akin to an outof-

town shopping centre, with big retail sheds and large amounts of car parking,

which, whilst close to Kirkby Town Centre, is also very close to the motorway

junction with the M57. As Mrs Taylor states in her proof (paragraph 4.16),

"While Skelmersdale would have numerous planning and design merits, the

practicality is that commercial retailers would infinitely prefer the Kirkby layout.

In the event of a choice Skelmersdale simply could not compete."

I concur with Mrs Taylor's view that this would be the case. Thus St Modwen will

not be able to attract the necessary retailers should Kirkby go ahead, and thus the

investment in the existing centre will be harmed, as will the public and private

investment in the Town Centre regeneration scheme

 

9.19 Whilst the witness from WYG will deal with many of the technical retail arguments

in relation to this matter, I should comment that without further retail and other

town centre investment in Skelmersdale, the long term vitality and viability of the

centre will be significantly harmed and additional vacancies will arise in the

existing centre.

 

9.20 The scheme that is being pursued in Skelmersdale is a real opportunity. If St

Modwen withdraw from the Town Centre regeneration scheme due to permission

being granted then this is almost certain to set back any sizeable further investment

for many years and there will be no prospect of any other developers coming

forward in the reasonably foreseeable future to deliver the Masterplan, particularly

if St Modwen, who are the UK's leading regeneration specialist and work in failing

areas, cannot make it work.

 

9.21 It is unacceptable for the scheme at Kirkby to worsen this already poor situation, as

well as preventing the bringing forward of a scheme that will help to address this

issue.

 

9.24 This is a view that is agreed with by the Skelmersdale Limited Partnership (the

owners of the Concourse Centre) who, in their objection to the planning application

dated 15th May 2008 expressed the view that the proposals in Kirkby if permitted

are;

 

"………highly likely to have an adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the

Concourse Centre which, as far as comparison shopping is concerned, is the core

of Skelmersdale Town Centre; accordingly any significant diversion of trade from

the Concourse Centre will directly threaten the vitality and viability of

Skelmersdale Town Centre as a whole."

[Louis]

and there's nothing like a few accusations of "state aid":

 

13.7 The truth is, it is not the development which is cross subsidising the stadium in

this case, but the underlying land value. If it were appropriate in planning terms

for the open space to be redeveloped for the foodstore and retail, as envisaged in

the application, the underlying land value, in this case owned by the public

sectors namely The Council, would be substantial. In fact greenfield land with

open A1 consent is worth in the region of £3m million per acre, and therefore

the retail elements of the proposals should have otherwise generated a significant

capital receipt to the public sector, in excess of £50 million. In reality, if there be

any cross subsidy of the Everton Football Club Stadium, it is not being generated

by the retail proposal but in fact by public sector subsidy through reduced land

receipt from the proposed disposal.

 

13.8 Given that Everton Football Club is a private company and not a community

facility owned by the community, it seems to me that what really lies beneath this

proposal is arguably nothing other than State aid to Everton Football Club.

 

13.9 It is not, in my view, the place of the State to support one football club’s

ambitions over and above any other football clubs ambitions, certainly not where

such a proposal is brought forward outside the proper planning channels and in

what is clearly a commercially driven opportunistic scheme.

[paul]

One concern with this talk about the town not being able to cope with 50,000 is that the club would just build say a 42,000 stadium there. I wouldn't want us to cut our nose off despite our face as the saying goes.

[Louis]

This is an extract from a recently released document from Tesco/Everton:

 

Valley Road (Westvale) Bus Park Queuing Reservoir

 

The bus park concourse area is approximately 2,150m². At a Fruin level of ElF this equates to 0.28m2 per person, similar to that experienced at Aintree railway station.

 

This area will hold approximately 7,700 people.

 

The bus park concourse is supplemented by another queuing area, a 10m footway along the northern side of Valley Road between Bewley Drive and Whitefield Drive. This area is approximately 1,220m² and can hold approximately 4,300 people.

 

It is expected that the bus park will need to accommodate in the first hour after the final whistle approximately 11,680 people.

 

These people will arrive at a reasonable constant flow with 1,800 people boarding the buses immediately they arrive. The remaining 9,880 people being held in the bus park concourse and Valley Road footway at a density of 0.34m² per person.

 

This is a picture used by the stadium transport person Joe Ellis to display how queuing could be handled by police and stewards:

 

[Randomness]

lets see that image in the cold or rain!

[Louis]

My photoshop skills arn't that good!!

[StevO]

i assume thats grand national weekend? (hats)

dont like the look of that to be honest, but then i dont use public transport to get to the match