Everton Board Close Up Shop

[Louis]

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

[MikeO]

"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.

[Everton_Worshiper]

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.

[StevO]

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.

[Jimmy the blue]

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.

[Romey 1878]

In my book it's criminal to want to move away from a thriving city centre where we will attract far more fans and therefore revenue to the outskirts of a city.

[StevO]

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.

[Jimmy the blue]

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.

[StevO]

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.

[Everton_Worshiper]

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....

[Jimmy the blue]

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

[carlmc25]

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!

Edited September 15, 2008 by carlmc25

[StevO]

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.

Edited September 15, 2008 by StevO

[Jimmy the blue]

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

[Louis]

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.

[Jimmy the blue]

One big question, how many rely on the train for matches at present? Why can't park and rides be used from other stations

such as Maghull Sandhills and Ormskirk, think about it

[Louis]

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)

[DangerMouse]

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??????

[Louis]

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.

[Jimmy the blue]

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

[Louis]

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).
  

[StevO]

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

[Louis]

Not you too, Steve

[StevO]

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.

[Louis]

I know Steve

[Jimmy the blue]

I know Steve

 

Isn't what he told me