MikeO Posted July 29, 2007 Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 (edited) Posted this elsewhere, but I think it's worth a thread of its own.. Can anyone confirm what I've just read on BK, that Walton was outside of Liverpool when Goodison was built, only becoming part of the city in 1895? If so doesn't that make a nonsense of the boundary argument and affect KEIOC's credibility (ie if they'd been around then they'd have self evidently been anti-Goodison). It's only one letter putting that forward as fact, be very interested to know if it's true. Edit...Found confirmation myself... At the end of the century, however, the city awoke to the danger of allowing the wealthy residential suburbs which derived their prosperity from the city to escape from their share of the costs of government. In 1895 the township of Walton, a second large section of the extensive township of West Derby, the township of Wavertree, and the remaining southern half of the township of Toxteth, were added to the city. From: 'Liverpool: Trade, population and geographical growth', A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4 (1911), pp. 37-8. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=41371. Date accessed: 29 July 2007. Edited July 29, 2007 by MikeO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted July 29, 2007 Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 Thats a good find Mike, very interesting site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rozzie22 Posted July 29, 2007 Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 Thats an excellent post Mike Very interesting point Also dont forget, Everton have never actually played in the borough of Everton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zed Posted July 29, 2007 Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 All this thing obout bounderies and not being in the city is a load of bollocks It not like we are moving to Milton Keynes, were just moving down the road Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maghull70 Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Posted this elsewhere, but I think it's worth a thread of its own.. Can anyone confirm what I've just read on BK, that Walton was outside of Liverpool when Goodison was built, only becoming part of the city in 1895? If so doesn't that make a nonsense of the boundary argument and affect KEIOC's credibility (ie if they'd been around then they'd have self evidently been anti-Goodison). It's only one letter putting that forward as fact, be very interested to know if it's true. But at the time we moved to Goodison we were only 14 years old and the Football League was a mere 4 years old. Hardly enough time to attach any sentimentality to anywhere. We've now had Goodison as our home for 115 years and its because of this history that people want to stay. But as Ive said before I'd rather us go to Kirkby than end up in Speke (which is probable if Kirkby falls through). AND on the subject of Kirkby and history. DID YOU KNOW that Kirkby is believed to be 1,200 years old (Liverpool only 800 years). AND Kirkby is mentioned in the Doomsday book in 1086 (as is Maghull I might add). Liverpool founded in 1207. History lesson over!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted July 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Sentimentality about leaving Goodison is a different argument to moving outside the city though isn't it? I'm with Zed anyway but my point for those that aren't is that we moved outside of the city in 1892 to secure our future when our home ground became a financial liability, and it kind of worked for us didn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted August 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Not looking to make a big deal or an argument out of this, because I think (and hope) it's gone beyond the single issue of the city limits that KEIOC was set up to campaign for to the issue of what's right for the club, but. A post from KEIOC's forum quite accurately points out that... - When Everton first played on Stanley Park it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton first played at Priory Road it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton first played at Anfield it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton first played at Goodison Park it was outside the city boundary. - If (changed from When by me) Everton play in Kirkby it will be outside the city boundary. The city always followed Everton. Edited August 8, 2007 by MikeO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadline Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 Not looking to make a big deal or an argument out of this, because I think (and hope) it's gone beyond the single issue of the city limits that KEIOC was set up to campaign for to the issue of what's right for the club, but. A post from KEIOC's forum quite accurately points out that... - When Everton first played on Stanley Park it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton first played at Priory Road it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton first played at Anfield it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton first played at Goodison Park it was outside the city boundary. - If (changed from When by me) Everton play in Kirkby it will be outside the city boundary. The city always followed Everton. Here Here well said, We don't follow we are followed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 It wouldn't be allowed to follow us this time though, Knowsley wouldn't just let Kirby go after the investment they'd put in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldfishMemory Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 It's something thats been said to me a few times but lets be serious Liverpool city council isnt about the extend its boarders in this day in age we are talking before the development of the city as we know it with the other moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted August 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Not disagreeing with that at all, just think it's an interesting point. And Mark, I don't think Knowsley wouldn't have any say in the matter, don't know exactly who changes the boundaries and why but I know that they're imposed from above. I was born in Middlesex, there's still a cricket team and a University called that but it's been wiped off the map as a county. Doesn't exist anymore :crying_anim02: . Petty local politico's have no say in the matter at all. Edited August 8, 2007 by MikeO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Stadium Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) ..... Edited August 30, 2007 by New Stadium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldfishMemory Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 To Mike O, please do not change the content of posts. This is afirst for me, never having seen this before. By all means quote and comment if you disagree, that is what these forums are for. However changing the content is not good manners and distorts. I posted a map of Everton at Anfield, about the only map showing EFC there, complete with the stands shown too. It clearly shows the Liverpool boundary at the current Kop end. You took this away as well. Here it the whole post again: - When Everton first played on Stanley Park it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton first played at Priory Road it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton first played at Anfield it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton first played at Goodison Park it was outside the city boundary. - When Everton play in Kirkby it will be outside the city boundary. The city always followed Everton. Knowsley is an artificial council rimming Liverpool and should be incorporated into Liverpool. This came about as Liverpool Council refused to incorporate Kirkby and Halewood in the city as the Boundaries Commission suggested. Kirkby is in all intents a part of Liverpool, as is Bootle, Birkenhead, Wallasey, etc. They are in the same socio-economic area as big Liverpool. There is talk of extending Liverpool to incorporate Knowsley and parts of Sefton. The protracted stadium move over now 10 years has eaten at the club - this results from poor club management. From the biggest in the UK, the Mersey Millionaires, to second tier. There are no Arabs waiting with pot of gold ready to save Everton - Everton have a poor image. If EFC stay at Goodison Park, be prepared for Championship football. EFC need a new stadium in a better location than GP, that is clear. I would like the stadium to be around Commercial Rd and this Bestway site looks not bad either. The ajacent Waterloo tunnel could be re-used and station opened up underground. If not then I will not cry about at Kirkby at all. My reservationis the cheap and nasty design for the Kirkby stadium - the corners are not even used. The sweeping bowl and roof creates atmosphere in modern stadia. Totally unacceptable. Below Everton at Anfield and clearly outside the city boundary which ran through the current Kop end end. Are you under the impression the anti Kirkby camp is all about the city boundries? As far as I'm concerned & most of the KEIOC team the issue is about relocating Everton from the heart of a growing city under re-development with masses of European investment to a retail park on the edge of the city. The future potential for naming rights & winning concerts and other money generating events is minimal in Kirkby whereas moving closer to the city increases it exponentially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 Dont get on your high horse mate the votings over and the move will most probs go ahead, so now everybodys lost interest in the Boundary lines, if the Boundary lines run through my house i'm still not interested, its over, finished, kaput, in the past. Forget about it cos now it means nothing. PS ..... if you look at the Date of MIKES post, notice it was put up on the 8th of august where as yours didnt go in the Stadium debate until yesterday 29th of august. What exactly is your beef with Mike, i dont see the need to cut and paste the whole letter, it made its point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 I just read a interview in the Evertionian magazine and wyness says the following: Interviewer: The main issue for those against the move is kirkby standing outside the Liverpool city Boundary. You have said that "if the heart rules the head" we will never get an opportunity like this again. But its difficult to ask supporters to let there heart ruler there head... Wyness: Part of the whole decision must be based on the future. Right now the plans are working towards a city region, which would include Sefton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens and Halton. That would become Greater Liverpool. I think thats what you must look at - thats why are children will grow up with. I find it very hard to accept the argument that Kirkby is not part of Liverpool. Its like saying that Bootle is not part of Liverpool. Kirkby is an "L" postcode. Its a random boundary that was drawn up. This is Liverpool as far as im concernec. He also goes on to say that they are working with an international stadium rights agency to discuss the naming rights of the stadium. Also Tesco WONT be involved in the naming rights, so no "tesco arena!" Also he says they looked at 16 other sites in Liverpool over the past year but none were suitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Stadium Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 Are you under the impression the anti Kirkby camp is all about the city boundries? That is their handle. As far as I'm concerned & most of the KEIOC team the issue is about relocating Everton from the heart of a growing city under re-development with masses of European investment to a retail park on the edge of the city. The future potential for naming rights & winning concerts and other money generating events is minimal in Kirkby whereas moving closer to the city increases it exponentially. I would rather EFC be in a fine site near the river inside Liverpool. However Kirkby doesn't upset me that much, just the poor quality design of the stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldfishMemory Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) That is their handle.I would rather EFC be in a fine site near the river inside Liverpool. However Kirkby doesn't upset me that much, just the poor quality design of the stadium. Who's handle? So what's the purpose of your post then?? Edited August 30, 2007 by GoldfishMemory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Stadium Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 PS ..... if you look at the Date of MIKES post, notice it was put up on the 8th of august where as yours didnt go in the Stadium debate until yesterday 29th of august. What exactly is your beef with Mike, i dont see the need to cut and paste the whole letter, it made its point. It was lifted from my post on the KEIOC forum, as he politely said. Nothing wrong with that, however changing it is a little out of order. Commenting on a post is the usual way, leaving the content intact. Evertonians do wander around the EFC forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Stadium Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 Who's handle? The keep EFC out of Kirkby brigade So what's the purpose of your post then?? Do I need to explain that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldfishMemory Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 Sorry thought forums were about expressing your opinions, if you dont want to elaborate then dont! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 I think he just wants recognition for his post, tho it looks as if its been lifted from somewhere else anyway. NICE FIRST POST MATE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted August 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 To Mike O, please do not change the content of posts. This is afirst for me, never having seen this before. By all means quote and comment if you disagree, that is what these forums are for. However changing the content is not good manners and distorts. Just changed (while reporting your original wording intact) your supposition of the future from a fact to a possibility. Didn't distort and didn't disagree, if you look back to the beginning of the thread you'll see that I'd done a little research into the subject myself and was just using your interesting post to further the point. I even credited where I'd got it from and would have named you if you'd named yourself. Consequently I'm a bit baffled as to what you're problem is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 I see he's thrown a tantrum and taken his post away, poor chap does'nt like us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Berno Posted September 2, 2007 Report Share Posted September 2, 2007 The thing there is that we built Goodison after Walton was put in Liverpool so not exactly the same thing as the Kirkby move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted September 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2007 The thing there is that we built Goodison after Walton was put in Liverpool so not exactly the same thing as the Kirkby move. No we didn't. 1892 we built Goodison, 1895 Walton came into Liverpool but it's more a point of historical interest than a direct comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-Pat-Sefton Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 (edited) Why are we as Scousers (or ex-scousers in my case) so Boundary obsessed? Does the council boundary really mean so much to you/us. Kirkby is Scouse. The accent is Scouse. Its postcode is L32. Why arent coucil boundaries as important elsewhere like in London or even here in Melbourne where people either dont know or dont care where the council boundaries are. I do understand why we'd want to stay within the boundaries but the Kirkby stadium site is a mere 700 yards or so from the LCC boundary. I think the main reason we dont want to move is the abuse that will come from the R/S and this is totally understandable. Now that is something I dont miss being 12,000 miles away from. Edited September 20, 2007 by Ex-Pat-Sefton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.