Sandhills station

[Bluebonic]

 

[Groucho]

View attachment 298356

Oh so you’re the people who constantly clog up Costco petrol?

 

[Tom Hughes]

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.

Well done, more nonsense and misrepresentation, no inconsistencies whatsover. Classic Davek.

This is about one question..... where has Council reneged or failed to fullfill their responsibilities laid out in the club's Transport Plan? Your fundamental Claim!

Without that.... the rest is semantics and enoneous nonsense.

 

[Tom Hughes]

No one wins. We all lose.

Apologies, but sometimes a boil (of misconception or misinformation) has to be lanced, otherwise we probably do all lose!

There is nothing new or surprising as regards the Public Transport provision as laid out clearly in the club's Transport Plan. It was published several years ago..... and the obvious issues were raised on these threads, other forums and with the club and authorities themselves even before it was released, at the time of publication, and many times since. According to what he's posted, his only assertions at the time were to claim that the cost of new infrastructure was solely the council's responsibility, as the club was paying for the stadium.... an entirely mistaken/false premise, as proven by examples of other stadium projects and/or indeed the very basics of ANY planning process. Responsibilities for Costs are negotiated and agreed by all parties in the process. End of Story!

Essentially, I have asked the ONLY relevant direct question regarding his fundamentally false claim about the council's responsibilities, he cannot/won't answer, because he knows that's the end of his whole argument. Unsurprisingly, the result has been a whole raft of further false/irrelevant claims, misrepresentation and tangential speculation about the imponderables and unknowns, just to muddy the waters further.

That might be ok for subjective largely trivial discussions about walls, Wind Generators, paternated walls and upside-down club motifs.... but if you're making claims about major issues/decisions, you have to be able to back it up with objective proof.

 

[davek]

Well done, more nonsense and misrepresentation, no inconsistencies whatsover. Classic Davek.

This is about one question..... where has Council reneged or failed to fullfill their responsibilities laid out in the club's Transport Plan? Your fundamental Claim!

Without that.... the rest is semantics and enoneous nonsense.

No, I think - CLEARLY - this discussion has settled down very nicely to one very important issue...and the transportation question at the new stadium is only one part of it.

It's this: the intent by you to exonerate a clearly underperforming local authority - an authority now notorious throughout the land, btw - by refusing to admit they passed through on a nod and a wink the Everton Stadium P.A. because it suited their own regeneration plans (regeneration they were unwilling / clueless to make happen themselves) and they did that without any regard for the safety of match day goers or anyone else travelling near the stadium on match days.

It was reckless and it was their decision to make all this happen. Their decision NOT to exercise their power with regard to all this and have every aspect of this stadium build nailed down. Whatever Everton agreed to or didn't agree to on a planning document means nothing by comparison. It was the sole responsibility of the local state to get this right. And it's the responsibility of the local state to step in now and sort this out.

Apologies, but sometimes a boil (of misconception or misinformation) has to be lanced, otherwise we probably do all lose!

There is nothing new or surprising as regards the Public Transport provision as laid out clearly in the club's Transport Plan. It was published several years ago..... and the obvious issues were raised on these threads, other forums and with the club and authorities themselves even before it was released, at the time of publication, and many times since. According to what he's posted, his only assertions at the time were to claim that the cost of new infrastructure was solely the council's responsibility, as the club was paying for the stadium.... an entirely mistaken/false premise, as proven by examples of other stadium projects and/or indeed the very basics of ANY planning process. Responsibilities for Costs are negotiated and agreed by all parties in the process. End of Story!

Essentially, I have asked the ONLY relevant direct question regarding his fundamentally false claim about the council's responsibilities, he cannot/won't answer, because he knows that's the end of his whole argument. Unsurprisingly, the result has been a whole raft of further false/irrelevant claims, misrepresentation and tangential speculation about the imponderables and unknowns, just to muddy the waters further.

That might be ok for subjective largely trivial discussions about walls, Wind Generators, paternated walls and upside-down club motifs.... but if you're making claims about major issues/decisions, you have to be able to back it up with objective proof.

This is utter bunkum. And you accuse me of "misrepresentation".

Good Lord, the wheels are falling off here...no pun intended.

 

[Tom Hughes]

No, I think - CLEARLY - this discussion has settled down very nicely to one very important issue...and the transportation question at the new stadium is only one part of it.

It's this: the intent by you to exonerate a clearly underperforming local authority - an authority now notorious throughout the land, btw - by refusing to admit they passed through on a nod and a wink the Everton Stadium P.A. because it suited their own regeneration plans (regeneration they were unwilling / clueless to make happen themselves) and they did that without any regard for the safety of match day goers or anyone else travelling near the stadium on match days.

It was reckless and it was their decision to make all this happen. Their decision NOT to exercise their power with regard to all this and have every aspect of this stadium build nailed down. Whatever Everton agreed to or didn't agree to on a planning document means nothing by comparison. It was the sole responsibility of the local state to get this right. And it's the responsibility of the local state to step in now and sort this out.



This is utter bunkum. And you accuse me of "misrepresentation".

Good Lord, the wheels are falling off here...no pun intended.

Bunkum you say?
These are your words:

"Why on earth should Everton fund it?

Can you imagine FSG digging into their piggy bank to fund a railway station when their club stadium had generated billions for the local economy?

Let the scab council ask their Tory masters to fund that."

Your long held (and evidently entirely misplaced) stance and the whole premise of your argument. Wheels fell off? Yes, right there!

 

[davek]

Bunkum you say?
These are your words:

"Why on earth should Everton fund it?

Can you imagine FSG digging into their piggy bank to fund a railway station when their club stadium had generated billions for the local economy?

Let the scab council ask their Tory masters to fund that."

Your long held (and evidently entirely misplaced) stance and the whole premise of your argument.

So how is demanding this corrupt council ask the Government of the day for funding for the infrastructure surrounding the stadium the same as you saying I stated "the cost of new infrastructure was solely the council's responsibility" ?

In your own time...

 

[Tom Hughes]

So how is demanding this corrupt council ask the Government of the day for funding for the infrastructure surrounding the stadium the same as you saying I stated "the cost of new infrastructure was solely the council's responsibility" ?

In your own time...

So here we have it in a nutshell.... WHY SHOULD EVERTON HAVE TO FUND IT? DEMANDING and CORRUPT. Any more groundless questions or superlatives that you would like to add? You/we/anybody cannot demand anything. It is negotiated and agreed in the planning process.

So again, which part of that agreement have the council failed to deliver?

In your own time.

 

[davek]

So here we have it in a nutshell.... WHY SHOULD EVERTON HAVE TO FUND IT? DEMANDING and CORRUPT. Any more groundless questions or superlatives that you would like to add? You/we/anybody cannot demand anything. It is negotiated and agreed in the planning process.

So again, which part of that agreement have the council failed to deliver?

In your own time.

Why are you moving the goal posts here?

You misrepresented my words to suggest I said 'LCC should be financing the improvements' > I correct you on it > you dont acknowledge that correction; then you drag this topic back to where it no longer resides: you setting up a straw man concerning the absence of any 'legal documentation' whereby Everton had LCC on the hook for infrastructure improvements.

That's never been my contestation and there is no need for that proof (or lack of) to address which institution is at fault here.

The fundamental issue now is why you're determined to stand in front of the local state and deflect all reasonable criticism they are getting over fans getting access to the new stadium...in particular, you've studiously avoided the overwhelmingly sustainable criticism I'm making that if they (LCC) couldn't safeguard events taking place at the stadium then they - as the governing authority - had no right to pass the P.A. for it and the stadium should not have been built.

I keep on saying here...and I keep on being right about it...all roads lead to the local state; they are responsible for handing the green light to a clearly chaotic and unachievable transport plan, so they are responsible for getting us out of it....which I think is the conclusion that the ludicrous Kirkby brickie has come to, hence his belated conversion to a glider scheme.

For some reason that I'm not aware you've decided you'll ignore the blindingly obvious hierarchy of responsibility in the delivery of this stadium and any failures that have resulted from it.

 

[Jacko93]

So basically Dave, what you saying is, your angry at LCC for passing the PA for the stadium which meant that you were proven wrong about it never getting built in the first place.

Is all of this over the last few pages so that you can say "I told you it wasn't going to be built and it was going to be called in, and its only corruption and incompetence that has allowed otherwise"?

Is that your play?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Why are you moving the goal posts here?

You misrepresented my words to suggest I said 'LCC should be financing the improvements' > I correct you on it > you dont acknowledge that correction; then you drag this topic back to where it no longer resides: you setting up a straw man concerning the absence of any 'legal documentation' whereby Everton had LCC on the hook for infrastructure improvements.

That's never been my contestation and there is no need for that proof (or lack of) to address which institution is at fault here.

The fundamental issue now is why you're determined to stand in front of the local state and deflect all reasonable criticism they are getting over fans getting access to the new stadium...in particular, you've studiously avoided the overwhelmingly sustainable criticism I'm making that if they (LCC) couldn't safeguard events taking place at the stadium then they - as the governing authority - had no right to pass the P.A. for it and the stadium should not have been built.

I keep on saying here...and I keep on being right about it...all roads lead to the local state; they are responsible for handing the green light to a clearly chaotic and unachievable transport plan, so they are responsible for getting us out of it....which I think is the conclusion that the ludicrous Kirkby brickie has come to, hence his belated conversion to a glider scheme.

For some reason that I'm not aware you've decided you'll ignore the blindingly obvious hierarchy of responsibility in the delivery of this stadium and any failures that have resulted from it.

There is only one set of goal posts here... the Club's Transport plan. Thankfully you have have finally accepted that the council hasn't failed to deliver on its agreed commitments, as outlined in that document..... ie "its side of the bargain".... and you've also accepted that they cannot be expected (as a matter of course) to pay for any infrastructure, simply because a private company has proposed or built a new facility.

I'm glad we finally got there.

 

[davek]

There is only one set of goal posts here... the Club's Transport plan. Thankfully you have have finally accepted that the council hasn't failed to deliver on its agreed commitments, as outlined in that document..... ie "its side of the bargain".... and you've also accepted that they cannot be expected (as a matter of course) to pay for any infrastructure, simply because a private company has proposed or built a new facility.

I'm glad we finally got there.

If you really want to leave it there Tom - with you absolving a corrupt local authority that clearly traded in its its powers to safeguard the community in order to get a regeneration driver for its north dock projects - then we can certainly let it rest at that.

 

[davek]

So basically Dave, what you saying is, your angry at LCC for passing the PA for the stadium which meant that you were proven wrong about it never getting built in the first place.

Is all of this over the last few pages so that you can say "I told you it wasn't going to be built and it was going to be called in, and its only corruption and incompetence that has allowed otherwise"?

Is that your play?

No mate. You're well off the mark there.

Ever since the penny dropped that - somehow - this clown shoes organisation called Everton FC had lucked-out by hiring the very best people to build a game changing stadium on a world famous site I have been fully on board with this stadium...and agog over the scale and majesty of it (apart from a grumble over the Meis design).

"The last few pages" have been a defence of the club from shouldering the responsibility for a transportation mess that really has to be placed at the door of the corrupt local authority.

How you dont pick up on that I have no idea.

 

[PeregrineT]

I like that we are creatively reimagining public transportation to be, for the first time in history, something anyone can do, and not the sole authority of the government. The idea that the government would let someone other than themselves build a rail station or a roadway is whimsical!

Im going to get started on mine.

 

[summerisle]

https://www.evertonfc.com/news/2025/march/12/Transport-Information-For-Second-Everton-Stadium-Test-Event-/