Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maghull70

Hypothetical Kirkby Question

Recommended Posts

Just wondered what other Evertonians thoughts were on the proposed Kirkby move.

Given the choice I think ALL of us would want a new stadium in the Liverpool City Boundaries.

Now I know the ground share thing is NOT going to happen.

 

BUT HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, my QUESTION is;

 

Would you prefer our own stadium in Kirkby or to share a stadium in Stanley Park??????

 

For the record I'm oppsed to Kirkby BUT I'd prefer Kirkby than share with that lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggested the exact same question the other week and I voted for shared stadium - I was in the minority though.

 

once again mr debatable has his say haha. louis im warming to continuously arguing against what peope say, wel done mate. how on earth could you even think about sharring a ground with the rs??? i think i would move to wigan then share with that shite. come on mate get real mate! maghull good point, in a perfect world we would stay in the cit BUT its not going to happen is it???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wondered what other Evertonians thoughts were on the proposed Kirkby move.

Given the choice I think ALL of us would want a new stadium in the Liverpool City Boundaries.

Now I know the ground share thing is NOT going to happen.

 

BUT HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, my QUESTION is;

 

Would you prefer our own stadium in Kirkby or to share a stadium in Stanley Park??????

 

For the record I'm oppsed to Kirkby BUT I'd prefer Kirkby than share with that lot.

 

Look at me replying to my own post (sad or what).

 

ANYWAY the reason for doing so is to pose another question.

 

The prospect of a ground in SPEKE which has been mentioned again recently (by warren bradley).

 

SO, KIRKBY OR SPEKE???? again I'm leaning towards Kirkby if out of those two.

 

I know that EVERTON fans come from all over Merseyside but I would hazzard a guess and say a majority are from North Liverpool? PLEASE correct me if I am wrong there.

 

So if (IF) that is the case I fail to see how a move to Speke would be anymore beneficial than a move to Kirkby. (and would be a pain for many to get to).

 

(although it may seem like I'm trying to build a case for Kirkby, thats not so, I would rather us stay in the Walton area).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imo it would be a stupid idea to groundshare because we carnt even fill our own ground never mind a 60000 seater and there talking 80000 now. i think we should still do something to Goodison even just renew the seats and facilitys would be a better option than a ground share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imo it would be a stupid idea to groundshare because we carnt even fill our own ground never mind a 60000 seater and there talking 80000 now. i think we should still do something to Goodison even just renew the seats and facilitys would be a better option than a ground share.

 

Most of us seem to think along those lines but it seems those in charge have no intention whatsoever of even entertaining the thought of redevelopment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could fill it if the prices were lowerd just as well as liverpool could and as for filling in out own ground around 3,000 seats a Goodison are restricted veiw and at the end of the day who in there right mind wants to go and sit behin a huge bar were you cant see anything on the pitch accept the corner flags and spend the best part of 40 quid to do so when you can now enjoy the game in the comforts of your living room or at your local. As for liverpool filling there ground if anyone thinks they willl get 80,000 every week they are full of BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reasons why a ground share would be acceptable:

 

stadium costs halved

it's not far from Goodison Park

80,000 capacity (as Jackelz says if ticket prices are lowered people will come)

 

Back in 2004 Bill Kenwright, Rick Parry and Richard Cabron all met with a view to a share stadum but the idea was thrown out because fans didn't want it.

 

New research at Cass Business School, estimates that only 16 out of 92 football clubs can afford the land they are using to bring in sufficient revenues. In order to ease chronic financing problems, ground-sharing with neighbouring clubs could be the solution.

 

 

 

The study was carried out by Tony Key, Professor of Real Estate Finance and Dr Vicki Law at the Real Estate Finance and Investment Group at Cass. Professor Key and Dr Law have produced a rule for the average attendance a club needs in order to generate enough revenue to justify the balance sheets: land value must be higher than residential land values in each area of the country. In central and greater London for example, where residential land commands upwards of £3 million an acre, a club would need to attract over 60,000 spectators to secure the land from property predators. In regions where land value is under £1million per acre, 15,000 would secure solvency.

 

 

 

Evertonian Chris Brady, a.k.a. the ‘Footy Prof’ and author of The 90-Minute Manager: Lessons from the Sharp End of Management, says: “As pairings, Arsenal and Tottenham, Everton and Liverpool. Aston Villa and Birmingham, Chelsea and Fulham, would generate enough revenue to pay land prices for their grounds well above competing residential development – and potentially generate large capital receipts from the sale of one ground.”

 

 

 

The research found that the land value of successful clubs in northern towns, such as Blackburn, Bolton, Middlesbrough, is high above its value for residential development. Even London’s largest and most successful clubs cannot match the inflated residential land prices. Smaller clubs in wealthier towns such as Cheltenham and Oxford suffer the most as their land values are also highly inflated.

 

 

 

In addition, Professor Key and Dr Law have created a football grounds database combining accounts data (turnover, debt, value of property on the balance sheet), ground capacity and attendance, the rents clubs could afford to pay as assessed by the Valuation Office Agency, plus estimates of what their grounds cost to redevelop, or what they would be worth if sold off for residential development. This database shows that in 2003, for example, the League clubs held £1.1bn of property assets on their balance sheets, accounting for 90% of their tangible assets. As a typical construction cost of £1200 a seat, their stadia would cost £2bn to rebuild. To finance that use of capital, they had a gross revenue of £1.5bn, made a pre-tax operating loss of £213m, and they already had debts of around £1.2bn.

 

 

 

The potential conflicts between the interests of clubs and property developers are a longstanding issue; Professor Key explains that the clash is rooted in the nature of their business:

 

 

 

“Football clubs make money on the land they use – usually valuable urban land – primarily on match days. That is an awfully light usage of land compared with covering it with houses or shops, for example. On average, football clubs are carrying £73 worth of property assets on their balance sheet for every £100 they make in gross revenue. That’s twice as much as the average retailer. Only the hotel industry needs more property to generate a pound in income than football clubs.”

 

 

 

So how does football keep ownership and control of its grounds when they could be sold off at a huge profit for residential and commercial development? The research says that clubs could ground-share with other clubs, co-locate with other sports, or build ancillary businesses with music, dining, catering and community facilities.

 

 

 

Professor Brady says that clubs lack reliable evidence on the revenues and costs of a range of solutions for their ground sharing problems:

 

 

 

“The work on grounds has been one of several studies of the football industry we have done at Cass, and this work on the management of grounds is just one of the issues we will be looking at through wider surveys of clubs, as part of a general effort to apply management best-practice to the football industry.”

 

 

 

At present, the UK’s unclear ground financing solutions comes from public funding derived from national bodies (Sport England, the Football Foundation) or from local authorities. Clubs also rely upon soft equity funding from directors and chairmen, and commercial debt from banks. A sample of clubs which have moved or redeveloped in the last decade currently carry an average debt 1.2 times their annual turnover, compared to 0.9 times turnover for clubs which have stayed put.

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.

×