Sandhills station

[davek]

I mean, a fair bit has changed in terms of available funding from central and/or local Govt since 2019 like....

But as has been pointed out - even back then no commitment to funding more cash was part of the P.A.

 

[Tom Hughes]

As I said in the last post: the more you struggle the more you entangle yourself:

You're now - after defending throughout the right of LCC to do nothing about the transportation mess as they're not legally obliged to (the notion of legality having being smuggled in by you, btw) - you now state that their request add to the P.A. their own 'connecting' project next door to the stadium as "fluff" and they'd been "purposely weak" with their fall back position of an 'active transport plan' which is largely the 30 minute walk back into town. Either they had no need to address it at all and didn't or they did but they purposely put forward "vague and weak" proposal and therefore were a bad faith actor in this.

Which is it?



Spurs/Arsenal: no I didn't "ignore" that point, I accepted it but then simply turned the comparison back toward you and asked you whether LCC had the same power to delay or reject a stadium plan as Harringey/Islington did if the club didn't commit to financing transportation improvements that would ensure there'd be no access/egress chaos and local area gridlock. And the answer to thquestion, of course, is yes - they di have that same power. They didn't take it though for the reasons I've outlined over regeneration and wanting desperately for this club to boost the north Liverpool districts which are struggling to bounce back. In other words: they got Everton on the hook as a driver for regeneration while sitting on their hands and dong nothing for 6 years after the P.A. was accepted.

I said earlier - and I was 100% right - all roads lead back to the local state on this.

But you'll still reach for a legal document that says so when the debate was never about that. It was a dishonest attempt to muddy the waters and protect people like Rotherham and the leaders of LCC from criticism of their own inaction and by doing that you do a disservice to every Evertonian who will struggle badly to attend events at the new stadium.

You're talking in riddles....

I clearly stated my concerns about the Transport Plan from the start.

You didn't even read it, and in your only historic comments (that you recently posted on this thread), all you did is claimed that the council should be paying for the infrastructure, and you yourself mention/accept the large walk-up and the fact that Vauxhall Stn "may come in the future".

I keep asking you what the council have failed to deliver from the Club's Transport Plan and you can't answer, but apparently they've been "sitting on their hands".

All you're left with is ridiculous accusations and contrary nonsense....... Apparently, now I'm doing Evertonians a disservice, when I was the one putting my head above the parapet, repeatedly mentioning it on this forum and questioning it at several meetings with the club and other authorities...... you weren't.

 

[davek]

You're talking in riddles....

I clearly stated my concerns about the Transport Plan from the start.

You didn't even read it, and in your only historic comments (that you recently posted on this thread), all you did is claimed that the council should be paying for the infrastructure, and you yourself mention/accept the large walk-up and the fact that Vauxhall Stn "may come in the future".

I keep asking you what the council have failed to deliver from the Club's Transport Plan and you can't answer, but apparently they've been "sitting on their hands".

All you're left with is ridiculous accusations and contrary nonsense....... Apparently, now I'm doing Evertonians a disservice, when I was the one putting my head above the parapet, repeatedly mentioning it on this forum and questioning it at several meetings with the club and other authorities...... you weren't.

You've been completely inconsistent in this discussion, and that's because you've had your feet held to the fire over your positioning of the local state some way down the hierarchy of blame for this transportation mess while placing the club at the top of it.

Throughout, your claim to the high ground of 'factual accuracy' has been curious given that - under questioning - you reveal you dont even have the Transport Plan document to hand to quote authoritatively from... and you haven't referred, at any point, to any document supplied by Mott MacDonald who are the consultation experts for the stadium regarding transportation.

At the beginning of the discussion (post 584 of this thread) you came out, right off the bat - first sentence - with the claim that transportation was "Everton-led"...which is, as you know, spurious. The club was a key stakeholder with obvious interests in accessibility to their own stadium, but the interests of other bodies were equally as obvious - not the least of which are LCC and LCR who have to ensure the safety of the citizens of this city - REGARDLESS of regeneration and what any rejection of Everton's plans may mean.

The insistence by you on some sort of smoking gun legal document between Everton and LCC is a red herring. It's not there because it wasn't insisted upon by the local authority (as it was insisted upon in YOUR very own examples from North London).

You've got some chutzpah, though, I'll give you that.

 

[Tom Hughes]

You've been completely inconsistent in this discussion, and that's because you've had your feet held to the fire over your positioning of the local state some way down the hierarchy of blame for this transportation mess while placing the club at the top of it.

Throughout, your claim to the high ground of 'factual accuracy' has been curious given that - under questioning - you reveal you dont even have the Transport Plan document to hand to quote authoritatively from... and you haven't referred, at any point, to any document supplied by Mott MacDonald who are the consultation experts for the stadium regarding transportation.

At the beginning of the discussion (post 584 of this thread) you came out, right off the bat - first sentence - with the claim that transportation was "Everton-led"...which is, as you know, spurious. The club was a key stakeholder with obvious interests in accessibility to their own stadium, but the interests of other bodies were equally as obvious - not the least of which are LCC and LCR who have to ensure the safety of the citizens of this city - REGARDLESS of regeneration and what any rejection of Everton's plans may mean.

The insistence by you on some sort of smoking gun legal document between Everton and LCC is a red herring. It's not there because it wasn't insisted upon by the local authority (as it was insisted upon in YOUR very own examples from North London).

You've got some chutzpah, though, I'll give you that.

More extraneous claims.... Feel free to point out any of my inconsistencies. After that, you can show where the local authority has not fulfilled their responsibilities/investment as laid out in the club's Transport Plan...... that is the crux of your argument, yet I'm still waiting!

I have downloaded all of Mott MacDonald docs and many more from the planning application since they were first published...... however, they have been readily available to everyone, so I've no idea what you're going on about not having the relevant docs at hand. I can regurgitate most of the key points from memory because I've been following it and commenting on it from the start. So, another nonsensical assertion.

The examples from London where obviously to show that contrary to your assertion (and another key point of your argument), local authorities are not responsible for stadium infrastructure costs at all. That has to be negotiated as part of the planning process and is reflected and agreed based on the Transport Plan..... no smoking gun, a real document outlining the requirements and the levels of investment/loans are also available... so unless you can identify a discrepancy or omission, your circular argument falls on its arse yet again. The local authority can give planning permission and even set various mitigation/control clauses to cover their arses.

I've said from the very start that there is a massive disparity in available and required public transport capacity at the site and in the past I've questioned some of the people involved. Their solution for that is Shank's Pony.... expanding their walking catchment to include the massive public transport capacity in the city centre.

 

[Jacko93]

All I know of all this, is that some people have actual working experience of these situations, and some don't.

 

[davek]

All I know of all this, is that some people have actual working experience of these situations, and some don't.

What elitist drivel, when this issue really isn't down to technical mastery of stadium engineering but the power dynamic between the local state vis-a-vis other institutions it come into contact with.

 

[Jacko93]

What elitist drivel, when this issue really isn't down to technical mastery of stadium engineering but the power dynamic between the local state vis-a-vis other institutions it come into contact with.

It isn't elitist drivel, it also isn't anything you do with anybodys mastery of stadium engineering, this is a general building/planning issue as much as anything, it also isn't anything to do with power dynamics. Its all to do with contractual obligations.

This is nothing to do with what you or I think is right and proper, or what anybody thinks is right and proper. Its all to do with what is contractually agreed to.

Ideally they would have started the large transport hub and rail terminus being built a short walk away, with major funding streams supplied by central Govt. but that's looking less likely than ever.

 

[davek]

More extraneous claims.... Feel free to point out any of my inconsistencies. After that, you can show where the local authority has not fulfilled their responsibilities/investment as laid out in the club's Transport Plan...... that is the crux of your argument, yet I'm still waiting!

What, a few more times so you finally get it?

I have downloaded all of Mott MacDonald docs and many more from the planning application since they were first published...... however, they have been readily available to everyone, so I've no idea what you're going on about not having the relevant docs at hand. I can regurgitate most of the key points from memory because I've been following it and commenting on it from the start. So, another nonsensical assertion.

Oh I've read them and referred to them. I'm just wondering why you aren't also quoting them chapter and verse so you can underline your point. This is all the more strange since you've determined yourself to be our very own Mr Gradgrind and cornered the use of the word 'facts' here.

The examples from London where obviously to show that contrary to your assertion (and another key point of your argument), local authorities are not responsible for stadium infrastructure costs at all. That has to be negotiated as part of the planning process and is reflected and agreed based on the Transport Plan..... no smoking gun, a real document outlining the requirements and the levels of investment/loans are also available... so unless you can identify a discrepancy or omission, your circular argument falls on its arse yet again. The local authority can give planning permission and even set various mitigation/control clauses to cover their arses.

It's not a circular argument at all. It's an argument you've failed to address. An inconvenient truth for you, but there it is.

By your own assertion the only way those two stadiums in North London saw the light of day was because the two relevant councils took their roles as public servants seriously and demanded Arsenal and Spurs foot-the-bill to upgrade transport to service their stadiums and not disrupt the rest of the travelling public. Compare that to the 'relaxed' approach to civic safety in Liverpool where LCC adopted a more laissez faire attitude and hoped it'd be alright on the night. It isn't and it wont be.

Logic tells you here that the local state - not the club - are the ultimate source for any ensuing chaos around BMD. That's because they took the decision to allow the construction project to go ahead. They are there as a council to take on board the requirements for the whole of this city - as you've been saying throughout: their job is not to cater to a football club. But in this instance we know that not to have been the case and they DID cater to the football club. They did that because the regenerative impact this stadium build was projected to bring to parts of the north end was the key determinant, not public safety, and they used that promise of regeneration to force that P.A. through...without all aspects of this stadium build nailed down.

They ducked the decision they really should've taken if they were viewing this stadium proposal in isolation. Safeguarding was down-graded and they''re right up against it now...a bit like you in this thread.

 

[davek]

It isn't elitist drivel, it also isn't anything you do with anybodys mastery of stadium engineering, this is a general building/planning issue as much as anything, it also isn't anything to do with power dynamics. Its all to do with contractual obligations.

This is nothing to do with what you or I think is right and proper, or what anybody thinks is right and proper. Its all to do with what is contractually agreed to.

Ideally they would have started the large transport hub and rail terminus being built a short walk away, with major funding streams supplied by central Govt. but that's looking less likely than ever.

Contracts dont get drawn up in a vacuum, do they?

 

[Tom Hughes]

What, a few more times so you finally get it?

Oh I've read them and referred to them. I'm just wondering why you aren't also quoting them chapter and verse so you can underline your point. This is all the more strange since you've determined yourself to be our very own Mr Gradgrind and cornered the use of the word 'facts' here.



It's not a circular argument at all. It's an argument you've failed to address. An inconvenient truth for you, but there it is.

By your own assertion the only way those two stadiums in North London saw the light of day was because the two relevant councils took their roles as public servants seriously and demanded Arsenal and Spurs foot-the-bill to upgrade transport to service their stadiums and not disrupt the rest of the travelling public. Compare that to the 'relaxed' approach to civic safety in Liverpool where LCC adopted a more laissez faire attitude and hoped it'd be alright on the night. It isn't and it wont be.

Logic tells you here that the local state - not the club - are the ultimate source for any ensuing chaos around BMD. That's because they took the decision to allow the construction project to go ahead. They are there as a council to take on board the requirements for the whole of this city - as you've been saying throughout: their job is not to cater to a football club. But in this instance we know that not to have been the case and they DID cater to the football club. They did that because the regenerative impact this stadium build was projected to bring to parts of the north end was the key determinant, not public safety, and they used that promise of regeneration to force that P.A. through...without all aspects of this stadium build nailed down.

They ducked the decision they really should've taken if they were viewing this stadium proposal in isolation. Safeguarding was down-graded and they''re right up against it now...a bit like you in this thread.

So you can't point out any inconsistencies on my part?

Now that you've finally stated that you've actually read the Transport Plan, you can "quote me chapter and verse" if you like, or just state in your own words, where LCC or any other agency have failed deliver on the contractual agreed terms of the Transport Plan.... or alternatively, tell us if I've misrepresented it all in any way.

 

[Jimishorts]

The sexual tension in this thread is palpable.

 

[Bryan+]

The sexual tension in this thread is palpable.

View attachment 298342

Honest to goodness

 

[Goat]

Team Tom here.

 

[windymiller]

Team Tom here.

No one wins. We all lose.

 

[davek]

So you can't point out any inconsistencies on my part?

Now that you've finally stated that you've actually read the Transport Plan, you can "quote me chapter and verse" if you like, or just state in your own words, where LCC or any other agency have failed deliver on the contractual agreed terms of the Transport Plan.... or alternatively, tell us if I've misrepresented it all in any way.

Inconsistencies

• You've both stated the LCC are not responsible for delivering infrastructure for a football club AND criticised the "local authority's lack of success in delivering major infrastructure" which would have a big positive effect on the stadium's smooth running
• You've both claimed the club expressed no dissatisfaction with the way the stadium transport plan has been handled AND stated that Colin Chong did express disappointment at the Vauxhall station being dropped during the planning period
• You've underlined that two stadiums in London were built after the clubs involved did what was asked of them by their respective hosting borough councils, but dont accept that's what should have happened here in Liverpool with Everton and LCC, as that failure places LCC front and centre...somewhere you dont want them to be in this discussion because this is all about hanging the mess round Everton's neck

Overall, and in your own words, this is at the heart of this story about local and private football club and responsibility for the emergence of a huge mess:

"All the council had to say during the whole process is they're skint or that they have far bigger priorities than funding infrastructure for a fortnightly event venue owned by a billionaire etc, and any improvements would have to be fully or partially funded by the club as was the case for both Spurs or Arsenal and their respective planning authorities."

They didn't do that though did they? And that's the square you cant circle to sustain the hierarchy of blame you seek to maintain.

Your wooly attempt at squaring it: "Whether or not a local authority grants planning permission will depend on several factors, how desperate they are for the development, and what they can leverage from it in negotiation" doesn't cut it, and you know it. Harringey and Islington went one way (the safeguarding way) Liverpool went the other way - to use your word: the "desperate" way.

That failure to safeguard by LCC - the whole wheeler dealer culture at large in the local state here (which is REALLY the fundamental issue here in all this) - is the reason we ended up with a state-of-the-art stadium which is 2 miles from the city centre but may as well be 200 miles away. They corrupt/clueless gets couldn't even link up this stadium with their own development half a mile away that they've had on the go for *just* 12 years.

But the council are off almost scot-free for you. It's been the club that's been on the receiving end of your forensic talent - an institution that has no power to redraw any routes, upgrade any stations, provide no new means of travel.