"Relevant" section of Everton barrister's summary...
1. The need for the club to move is an important component of the regenerative impetus. It has been in existence since 1878 and whatever the disagreements at the inquiry it is clear from such as Mr Elstone, KEIOC and others, that it is a proud club. It has had many years of success and has played the most games in the highest divisions of English football. It is a club which historically has been prepared to adapt and grasp modernity. It was host to World Cup games at Goodison Park 43 years ago because they had up to date facilities - a description which cannot be applied now.
2. It is a truism that a football club like any other business is not isolated from modern commercial pressures. EFC and its business at Goodison Park, in simple economic terms, depend on adequacy of ‘production goods' in the team and the stadium which will drive the success or otherwise of the club. Success is judged by what is achieved on the pitch and whether a sufficient number of spectators have an experience which is good enough to make them return, and also to attract others. If neither is achieved the club will atrophy over time and that is a course none seriously can wish. There is concern over the cycle of decline. Lack of investment or opportunity to invest means that the club will reduce its effectiveness.
3. Combined with that is the general planning approach that it is desirable that a recreational experience which is enjoyed by large numbers of the public should be located, presented and managed in a manner which is adequate and sustainable. That is not unique to EFC but has prevailed to allow Liverpool FC to plan a move into a new stadium in historic Stanley Park. The advantages overwhelmed the disadvantages in the public interest. Other clubs have undertaken recent moves elsewhere in the country.
4. Whenever any club is to move it will be beset by financial issues of affordability. Football clubs perhaps have a different business model to other commerce. Many boards are composed of enthusiasts who are prepared to put up their money to fund the club in one form or another with little or no material return and who are prepared to accept that close involvement with the hoped for success of their passion is dividend enough.
5. Somehow that has been the currency of many clubs for many years and EFC is no exception historically and currently. Some clubs have been sold to highly affluent investors from overseas. They are a finite band particularly, it is reasonable to assume, in the current financial market. They are not necessarily a panacea for resolving money problems since they too have to raise money and service the debt. Nevertheless as Mr Elstone told, since Mr Kenwright became Chairman in 2004 the club, like many, has been for sale. Nobody has been appointed to sell the club and to the knowledge of the CEO there is no buyer for the club.
6. The decision should be taken on the basis that the club's financial structure will continue as it is currently - unable to fund a move to a new stadium or indeed a rebuild of a current stadium without subsidy from another source.
7. Thereafter it is a specious suggestion that EFC should stay where they are or that they are trying to steal a march on their competitors by constructing a stadium they cannot afford. That is Luddite business planning of ‘do nothing and it will be alright'. On the contrary, as above, EFC are investing in the future like any business by raising finance for a stadium which will provide one of the best customer experiences in the country (and indeed as good as Wembley if not better). The new stadium will serve the existing season ticket holders given that 75% of the current holders live within 12 miles which is 1% more than for Goodison Park.
8. Perhaps the inconsistency of the opposition approach at the inquiry is typical of the general position on football clubs and football stadia. Everyone is an expert. Like all self - appointed experts they cannot agree. Some suggest a smaller stadium and some a larger. Some accede to a move, others do not. Whatever, the conclusion is invited that Goodison Park is inadequate. That has not appeared to be controversial.
9. Mr Skempton for KEIOC told Mr Keirle that GP is a "horrible experience for non football fans" and he suggested that revealed ‘a gender imbalance' which should be addressed. Mr Skempton's views are on behalf of KEIOC but an objective view can corroborate it to some extent when the following indicative characteristics are addressed:
i. Lack of capacity and opportunity for expansion;
ii. Spectator viewing experience with 53% of the stadium having obstructed views;
iii. Corporate facilities well below those of competitor clubs; and
iv. Concourse facilities constrained and underprovided.
10. That is confirmed by the Premier League Fans Survey which make gloomy reading for the club since it is only in the category of quality and range of food and drink that the club is removed from around the bottom of the league and that must be because they are not dependent on the stadium but the skill of the staff.
11. The decision has been taken to move and EFC have been looking for more than 10 years during which nothing has matured into a solution and the Goodison Park stadium conditions have got worse, particularly in comparison with its peers. The decision was not taken without the approbation of supporters and shareholders. There were three ballots and an EGM to address the issue. All concluded in favour of a move. Mr Elstone described a unique set of circumstances which will enable EFC to provide a new stadium which is affordable and deliverable.
12. The search was explained by Mr Potts, and the DPP work corroborated it by looking even wider to satisfy the requirements of environmental assessment. No site is seriously suggested by those trawls. The following conclusions are invited:
i. The site must be big enough to do the job of accommodating a stadium for 50,000 spectators with the possibility of 60,000 to modern standards of concourse and approaches;
ii. There is no site in Liverpool City as has been shown by the Council being satisfied by LFC on three occasions, including 2008, that there was no alternative to Stanley Park;
iii. No site out with the City is seriously proffered before the inquiry;
iv. PPS 17 requires that a stadium should be close to transportation facilities;
v. It is not an issue ultimately for decision whether it is right for EFC to move. None can require them to stay. The decision is whether or not the location is appropriate for a new stadium; and
vi. EFC must be in a position to afford the stadium. Mr Elstone revealedhow they think they can proceed and what they can afford. It is cautious and not excessive. At £130m it is substantially less ambitious than Liverpool FC's budget of £350m of which Mr Burchnall told he had never seen a financial appraisal.
