FanchesterCity

An apology from those in command at the ground, if only to say "it was a messy situation, and the choices we made made it worse" From the British Government who, across a number of years and two political parties, have done little to make public some of the documents pertaining to that day, or more to the point, the meetings that took place in the aftermath. There are those who'll always think certain people acted with crass insensitivity, and some who blatantly lied about matters, but for the large part, I think most fans went to enjoy a match, and most 'officials' went to work that day, seemingly like any other day. Alas, it wasn't to be. And, whilst I'm at it... the FA aren't blameless either. Cramming more and more into grounds with quite shocking facilities truth be told, and penning people in a manner that would be illegal for animals. Call it a 'culmination' of years of neglect, combined with wrong choices, but worst of all, worse than anything else, the desire to brush things under the carpet. Just sayin' like! I might get slated for the above - it's simply how I see it. I wasn't there, but I did witness it as it happened and will never forget it. I like to think of it as an 'independent' view. Some may suggest otherwise!

Hear hear I hope all of Merseyside, and indeed the whole country (because ALL football fans should know)... get to learn the true events of that day. I believe it was just a truly tragic accident brought about by a number of human mistakes across multiple many sectors, but for the sake of the people it affected, maybe, just maybe to get SOME sort of closure and apology. It's not a lot to ask. For those of old enough to remember it, it only serves as a reminder to why folks should have some respect for other fans, show a bit of common sense, come back from every game we attend safe and sound. 96 didn't that day, and I personally wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Anyway - the guy was a real credit to Liverpool. Calm, collected and got across his gut wrenching memories brilliantly. Richard Keys is a buffoon though

Yes I didn't want to mention the word to avoid any hassle you can sometimes get - I assumed anybody listening would know the subject matter. He came across brilliant and probably told the story for most folks (obviously not the details, but the general feeling)

Heartbreaking to listen to the Everton fan on Talksport. Some things should always be remembered - and the 'truth' known - no matter how ugly aspects of it might be. Hard to get a tear in your eye hearing his account of an Everton fan driving to Sheffield to find his brother (Liverpool fan).

Apparently Wayne Rooney has issued an apology prior to tonight's game. "I am sorry for getting sent off in the 32nd minute"

To be fair chaps... things change very quickly.... Yes, right now, most of us City fans are living in dream land - I swear the feeling when they play the CL music in the stadium.... it's amazing. BUT... it could all go wrong tomorrow. So far, the Sheikh really seems to be going about it all in a very great way - nice fanzone at the ground - local bands playing before the match... outdoor bars, restaurants etc etc. But who's to say what's around the corner for us? disaster could be looming if he pulled out. And as some have alluded to - a little bit of 'soul' is lost. But we've had chairmen who supported the club - managers who played for us etc etc, and none of them really worked out. We all LOVED the idea of Francis Lee being our chairman - it was great in principle, but in practice - it actually made us move backwards, not forwards. My heart tells me Everton have possibly missed the boat. That there was a real change 4-5 years ago, but now, it's looking grim. There's far less money in the world right now, and councils aren't into building stadiums these days. The number 1 thing with City was that stadium, start to finish. The council make money from it now, as do City... both have a share in the profit. On the one hand, sure, it's not 100% ours, and it reduces our profit, BUT, we didn't pay a penny for it, and it keeps the council sweet as it's a nice little earner for them. They'd be making sod all with it without us. Right now, the grass looks greener on our side (arguably), but some of the players need a kick up the arse (Tevez) and we still manage to balls things up at every opportunity. I don't like the fact that we're buying our success (mostly), but... when you look back historically, Liverpool and United have always spent big. They didn't exactly get to the top on a lowly budget no matter how 'romantic' they try to make their stories. Everton will pull through this current dark period. ... at least you're not in the old Second Division !!! now that WAS bloody dark!

This guy is clearly has the gift of the gab... but avoid like the plague. Many suspect he's behind the antics of multiple players.

Anything to avoid getting a round in eh? ;-)

I thought they were in talks with Zaheel Investments another leg of the 'Saudi Royal Family' - but whenever there's any interest from Saudi 'the Saudi Royal Family' term always gets rolled out. I do agree though that there's no way Sheikh Mansour 'just' bought City totally out of the blue. They must have had some notion of buying a club for a while. Of course, City was a fire sale, and this might have presented too good an opportunity for him to turn down. Now, this might sound daft, but I do recall it being mentioned during the take over... The name 'Manchester' (thanks to United') was a factor... not a huge one, but a factor still. Manchester City could ride on the back of 'Manchester'. As silly as it sounds, Everton doesn't have that luxury. It's very subtle and nowt to do with football, but marketing and brand recognition.

I'm absolutely sure 'like for like' they'd have looked at other clubs. Nobody can honestly say they chose City above any other team out of love!... simply right opportunity and the right time. Frank Sinatra (the dodgy Thai) chairman needed to get rid of his shares quickly and he cut a deal with the Sheik. Compared with other potential clubs, City was probably the easiest / best option.... New ground already in place, lots of spare land around the ground, failing club with large fan base etc etc - for sale right now, no quibbles. With any other club, there would have been a lot more negotiation, and potential hurdles with the ground etc etc. I don't want to say City had more footballing potential, but as a business opportunity, it's probably fair to say they did have a lot more potential due to the above factors. I think it would be unfair to think Everton did something wrong, more a case of City were bloody jammy and as Bill pointed out, nothing 'underhand', but some clever moves on their part. That ground was probably the best political move they've ever made. Getting it for sod all (but the council take a cut of the revenue) and only spending 20 million (from memory) on converting it for football. Something West Ham are trying to do, but it's happened at an awful time for West Ham, AND there are all sorts of stipulations in that deal to keep the running track etc, and it might be the wrong size. I'm curious as to how Bill K is going to 'know' the right buyer when they arrive. I doubt they'll be Everton supporters... and far more interested in business. How is bill going to differentiate some Arab Prince, from an American tycoon, from an Italian Mafia mogul?... and how the hell he'll ever know their long term intentions is beyond me.

That's piece is simply incorrect. Shortly after City were bought, the press started stories that another 5 clubs were being 'looked at' but Saudi businessmen / consortia. Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle and a couple of others, but all these rumours started AFTER the first purchase.

The interview is very good. The headline about 'Man City owners might have bough Everton' is a tad misleading (as ever). Technically it's true, but it implies that Everton was 'on the list' so to speak. Which is a bit inaccurate. He's damn right though - City got lucky for many reasons, and with the same luck, it could have been Everton. He comes across very well - like Dave Whelan does - BUT, Dave Whelan's a merciless businessman behind the scenes. He appears to be live everybody's favourite uncle etc - but you wouldn't want to cross him. Quite how Bill is in a business sense is hard to know - it's not his core skill. Regardless he 'sounds' like the type of chairman most clubs would love. I think he makes a good point about Evertonians holding on to history, which is a great thing... but might be an issue too. I'm not entirely convinced it's holding you back that much though. I think the 'Everton' romance angle is bit questionable. Not a dig at Everton, but Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, West Ham etc would all say the same thing about it being a 'special' club. And in many ways, they are ALL right. All in all thought, cracking interview.

Half decent interview although in reality we learn nothing new. Comes across as much more pragmatic on this interview than he ever does after a match (but that's to be understood when luck, and referees are not on your side!) I do wonder though - at what point he 'may' think it's never going to happen for him at Everton and if he wants to win something, when does he go? and to where? And where could he go? if it were to happen tomorrow - where would he get? Newcastle / Villa / Spurs / West Ham ? all arguably sideways moves or downwards, and even if you think a couple of those MIGHT be a step up (at the moment), it's not a giant leap is it? It's very hard to see where Moyes could / would go even if a job came up. Man United is the only one I think he'd definitely consider. City? nah - too much of a merry-go-round. Liverpool? not going to happen is it!.... Chelsea? nah he's British. oooh maybe Arsenal - yes, that could be a possible. ok, United or Arsenal, but can't see beyond those two. The interviewer also alluded to an important factor - the fans seem to stick by him. From what I've read on this forum, a lot aren't impressed with his tactics / style of play recent (if ever) but none are calling for his head. Perhaps, when Mr Moyes sits down every Friday night with a glass of wine - he must think - it's not perfect at Everton, but it's not hell either. It would take one hell of an offer to keep him away from a comfortable environment with a club he's grown to love. But from an outsider's point of view.... it would be nice, out of curiosity, to see what he could do with money, or at another club - to see if he's really as good as we suspect.

hear hear. Another damn good reason why players shouldn't feign injury - because every now and then, someone really IS hurt. The stadium announcer at Accrington's a mate of mine! no doubt I'll get the info eventually. Let's hope the long delay was more for precaution than necessity. Fingers crossed.

Ah well, some of my historical investigations have shown a very close correlation between Everton and City in the terms on fan numbers. In the entire history of both clubs, the total number of fans that attended all games is incredibly close - nigh on the same. And, in general, the attendances 'averages' per season have been close too - obviously a few years when Everton weren't doing well, and a few when City werent etc... but in general (not wishing to upset anyone) ... you could call them 'about even'. In the last 8 years, City have gone up quite a bit, to more or less 95% capacity in league games (making us 3rd most attended behind United and Arsenal). Now, I didn't start the thread to get into 'City v Everton' or anything like that - but I think it more than reasonable to imagine if you had the same size ground, and same success (currently) your attendances would follow the same pattern. i.e. every reason to think you'd get 48K too. Quite possibly more - hard to tell. The attendances have risen since the move to the stadium... BUT the first couple of years, they actually dipped a bit (from memory), but then progressively improved. I suspect eventually fans 'got over' it and started coming back - plus, we started playing a bit better - with Sven coming along, then Hughsey, Then Mancini blah blah blah. Anyway, it certainly wasn't down to us getting into Europe, because we weren't in Europe (barring one lucky season via 'fair play'). So it MUST have been a combination of new stadium and better performances. It's only on the last 3 years we've had all this money to burn, so it's not that. (Although many years ago, in the early 80s, we got a bit mad with money, and got into a LOT of debt and it hurt us big time). The only worry (with all clubs) is the current economic climate is causing a lot of fans trouble, and the Premier League bubble COULD burst. So it might seem like a great idea to be dreaming of 50-60K etc, but most clubs might actually see their numbers fall, and nobody wants to be rattling around a mega stadium half full. United are a bit of an exception (in my eyes), but even they are having to really fight for customers (don't believe all that crap about every game sold out for months), it's bull. My son works at United! (with quite a few Scousers as it happens)

You're quite right... daft bugger I am... apologies! Although I didn't add the 47 to 36.... just did the maths on the full 47, whereas you're already getting 36 of that. Suppose we could have said "matchday revenue SHOULD go up by at least 30%" (then there's all 'opportunities' a stadium might afford) 6 million a year - that just seems a poor return... then again, maintenance costs should go down (whatever they currently are). But it's not a lot is it?

I can see the lesbian link now.... Many lesbians have a shaved tw*t and Ray IS a shaved tw*t !!! (pardon my French)

Average now is (say) 36K.... 47K extra at 20 games a season is 940K extra spectators. 30 quid a ticket is about 28 million extra in matchday revenues. Of course, it's not ALL profit, and there's extra policing etc, but let's half it... that's 14 million extra a year minimum. Possibly those figures took into account paying for the actual stadium too... in which case, perhaps they'd only be 6 million better off (BUT they'd have a new stadium too!). There's also other factors with the stadium - better sponsorship / concert events / improved image etc

80K is a lot to ask. Very few clubs could get that. And let's not forget, the Northwest is MASSIVELY well supported. When you consider Liverpool, Everton, United, City, Bolton, Blackburn, Wigan (that's another 4 blokes) et al... it's a minor miracle. It's all very well for your Barcelonas and Madrids with only 2 or 3 close by teams, but the North West is amazing. London's impressive too, but per capita, the North West is probably already the best supported region in Europe (possibly the world?) As for ticket pricing, it's a real fine balance: 60,000 fans @ 10 quid = 600K 40,000 fans @ 20 quid = 800K 30,000 fans @ 30 quid = 900K For most clubs - there's not a lot of incentive to lower the prices is there? There's simply more money to be make from them squeezing more out of the core fanbase. That said - there are other factors (like catering and merchandise extra policing costs).. 80,000 fans @ 8 quid = 640K + average spend of 5 quid per person = 1040K 60,000 fans @ 10 quid = 600K + average spend of 5 quid per person = 900K 40,000 fans @ 20 quid = 800K + average spend of 5 quid per person = 1100K 30,000 fans @ 30 quid = 900K + average spend of 5 quid per person = 1150K That paints a very different picture. Imagine... 8 quid a ticket? Now... IF it was your business.... be honest, would you hold out for 80,000 fans and charge them 8 quid, OR would to go with a much more 'certain' fanbase of 30,000 and fleece them? It would seem that every single club in the Premiership has opted to stick with the 'fleece the solid fan base' model. They know we're mugs.

I'll never forget the quick witted humour of fans when some lad was asking his girlfriend to marry him during half time - he was on the pitch down on one knee... when the crowd starting singing "You don't know what you're doing, you don't know what you're doing"... And I still roll about when fans wave a sent off player with "cheerio, cheerio, cheerio!"

As I understand it, we're trying to understand the word 'understand' and there's a distinct lack of understanding among those of us not being understood. Have I understood that correctly? Never mind being hit with a bottle.... this stuff's enough to make us ALL hit the bottle!

Family prices are a good thing - or any scheme for 'Lads and Dads' (or daughters). Trouble is, the clubs rely quite a bit on matchday income - although it's not always the single largest source of revenue, it's a significant one - so the 'deals' only seem to happen when they know they're unlikely to get a good crowd without it. I'm a season ticket holder, but I know many who have to pick and choose their games now - mostly because of cost and sometimes because of work etc. Not sure about parking at Everton, but it's 10 quid at City - which I think is too much. I manage to get a spot for 5 quid, but still, it all adds up :-( Totally agree at good transport links - for a modern stadium, with higher capacity - it's an absolute must, and I think this is why local councils like the idea of stadiums in run down areas to help subsidise their transport ideas. 50K seems doable to me. I don't want to draw massive comparisons, but I have been doing some research and ALL TIME attendances for City and Everton are night on identical, and average attendances, by and large have been similar too. Our average of late is 47K, and I'm pretty sure Everton would manage the same if things on the pitch were good, and the prices right. On the radio today were a couple of Coventry fans who expressed their problem as having a ground that was TOO big. That's a real danger I think - being over ambitious and building a flash stadium for 65-75K and it not being close to full. 50-55K would seem about right I would guess, and of course, in theory, a ground designed for expansion should it ever be needed (something I'm told Reading have 'built in' to their ground. To boost match day revenue by 40-50% would be great for Everton. It would make a significant difference to buying power (you'd hope) but also get some feel good factor back on matchdays with a rip roaring crowd!

Whatever happened to his 'Butch' tag Ray 'Butch' Wilkins for those too young to remember. Hard to see him as butch now. Come to think of it, you rarely hear the word butch! (in the context of men)

There also has to be evidence that the lines in the road and the camera have been calibrated within a specific period of time prior to the alleged incident.. Also - I'd have to verify this again - but handheld units are supposed to be calibrated and logged as such EACH morning before they are put into operation - failure to register a calibration effectively 'voids' the reading... even though if you were doing 100 in a 30 zone, it's unlike the calibration was that far out. Problem is - it's usually cheaper to pay the fine and take the points than it is to challenge it, once you've spent the time preparing your case and filling in the forms, attending court etc. A couple of footballers have gotten off on this, along with incorrect procedure after being pulled over, and poorly calibrated average speed distances... the more money you've got, the more you can afford to challenge!

Can't help but feel it will simply shift everybody up by 10mph. So all those doing 80 will not do 90. I'd far rather see 'context sensitive' speeds. So middle of the night and no traffic - 100 is ok. etc In this day and age, it wouldn't be that difficult for Engine Management to be limited with 'x minutes' allowed over the limit for emergency use. You get the idea? limited to 70, but there's 5% of the time you can go over it a little - just in case there's a genuine need for it. AND.. it would boost the economy in 'chipping' your car to circumvent it ;-)