Sandhills station

[Tom Hughes]

If this was Destination Kirkby you'd have taken a completely opposite view to KMBC passing a stadium up there than you have for LCC on this build. That also was a transportation disaster that was passed and Knowsley rightly got pilloried for it. And by you.

As for MY nonsensical claim about primacy and responsibility being with the local authority....YOU yourself stated the planning could go ahead "provided that public safety is not compromised". In other words YOU brought the concept of primacy into this discussion on that basis.

It's a surreal world you inhabit. One where applicants and L.A.s 'agree' the outcome of a P.A. and where public safety - or the lack of - can be a matter of negotiation along the way after the go ahead when all parties know it'd be an unmitigated and irresolvable show.

This stadium should not have gone ahead. You know it but wont say it because it denies you the chance to lay blame for this at the door of the club.

I am not interested in your endless circular arguments, completely ignoring any facts and speculating wildly to attribute blame or responsibility. These issues are all well documented and clearly defined in the planning application.... hence the reason why the club aren't making ANY of your accusations or claims about dereliction of responsibility or primacy post-planning. Because they're nonsense!

I have questioned the transport plan from the start. You haven't!

I was against Destination Kirkby on multiple levels right from the start and was part of the KEIOC group, as far as I am aware, you weren't. So, you appear to like to shout from the side lines or be contrary for the sake of it, largely after the fact.

Transport was a key issue with Kirkby.... and one that we were able to easily focus on as we also had a lot of inside information on it and the transport plan itself..... which went through various revisions in a very short time, with red-flags popping up all over the place. It had descending into farce by the time of the inquiry. On transport, the main difference between the 2 projects is that Knowsley didn't have the proximity-to-city-centre and all of its public transport, as a fall back. Their only fall back were clauses to reduce capacity if the unworkable public to private transport ratios and dispersal times were not achieved. Completely disproving your post-panning primacy non-argument instantly. All undisclosed until the public inquiry. Even then, neither them nor the club were bothered, as they probably just wanted to push it through and hoped it would all just be ironed out in time after it was built.

With BMD, the saving grace was Merseyrail (which at Sandhills has something like 6 times the capacity of Kirkby with the Wirral line a 30 minute walk away offering similar again), supplemented with the Shuttle bus service and all backed up by their one-size-fits-all solution of the "reasonable" walking-distance envelope to the city centre. Similarly evident on these threads, as multiple posters repeatedly claimed how easy it was to walk from various places in town, many posting their best times as proof. There was nothing even remotely comparable to back-up Kirkby. Park and ride descended in to park and walk and then finally, park and hike.

I haven't tried to lay the blame on any individual member of the transport working group..... because that would be ridiculous! Whereas you seem to have a political axe to grind, completely ignoring how these things work and what has actually happened!

 

[davek]

I am not interested in your endless circular arguments, completely ignoring any facts and speculating wildly to attribute blame or responsibility. These issues are all well documented and clearly defined in the planning application.... hence the reason why the club aren't making ANY of your accusations or claims about dereliction of responsibility or primacy post-planning. Because they're nonsense!

I have questioned the transport plan from the start. You haven't!

I was against Destination Kirkby on multiple levels right from the start and was part of the KEIOC group, as far as I am aware, you weren't. So, you appear to like to shout from the side lines or be contrary for the sake of it, largely after the fact.

Transport was a key issue with Kirkby.... and one that we were able to easily focus on as we also had a lot of inside information on it and the transport plan itself..... which went through various revisions in a very short time, with red-flags popping up all over the place. It had descending into farce by the time of the inquiry. On transport, the main difference between the 2 projects is that Knowsley didn't have the proximity-to-city-centre and all of its public transport, as a fall back. Their only fall back were clauses to reduce capacity if the unworkable public to private transport ratios and dispersal times were not achieved. Completely disproving your post-panning primacy non-argument instantly. All undisclosed until the public inquiry. Even then, neither them nor the club were bothered, as they probably just wanted to push it through and hoped it would all just be ironed out in time after it was built.

With BMD, the saving grace was Merseyrail (which at Sandhills has something like 6 times the capacity of Kirkby with the Wirral line a 30 minute walk away offering similar again), supplemented with the Shuttle bus service and all backed up by their one-size-fits-all solution of the "reasonable" walking-distance envelope to the city centre. Similarly evident on these threads, as multiple posters repeatedly claimed how easy it was to walk from various places in town, many posting their best times as proof. There was nothing even remotely comparable to back-up Kirkby. Park and ride descended in to park and walk and then finally, park and hike.

I haven't tried to lay the blame on any individual member of the transport working group..... because that would be ridiculous! Whereas you seem to have a political axe to grind, completely ignoring how these things work and what has actually happened!

To attempt to decouple the critique of Destination Kirkby from this stadium is not going to happen for you. Sorry. You might think you can bluff your way around that but you cant: both P.A.s should have been killed off stone dead as soon as they hit the planning officers desk.

They weren't though for similar reasons: both councils had eyes too big for their stomach and agreed to allow the build if the club could get the wherewithal together to do so. To suggest that the walk through to town for BMD gets LCC out of jail as opposed to KMBC with their Tescodome is absurd. "Knowsley didn't have the proximity to centre to city centre as a fall back"...no, and neither does this new stadium. Clearly. It's a slog to get from that stadium to town. Kirkby was always going to be terrible, but unlike at the docks it wasn't boxed in with a river behind it...and that's not saying it should have gone ahead, btw.

Go and take a look at the mayhem after that last test event...go and look at the effect of what way under half of the capacity that this new stadium holds had on that part of town, then envisage what the situation looks like with 55,000 descending on the area and getting out again. If you believe the agreement to allow that to go ahead at the P.A. stage with zero promise of infrastructure secured by either club or the local state at that point was a decision that stands up - either then or now - you're taking the piss and merely trying to square a circle for the sake of answering a pointed question.

Let me ask you: if you're the planning officer for the BMD stadium proposal do you pass that stadium? In principle I dont think so. But as we know it's down to politics not safety that this went ahead at the docks. The external pressure on the city planning department and safety officers would have been enormous from their bosses who would have just made it plain: "regeneration...free rider...that'll do. Rubber stamp that". Same as what happened at Kirkby.

It's unsafe. It'll remain unsafe for the foreseeable. That had to be denied but it wasn't. And now we have a show, same as it would've been at Kirkby.

As for a political axe to grind: that's just simple deflection because you cant make a logical case to defend the go ahead handed out by what appear to be your mate's in the local state.

 

[Goat]

To attempt to decouple the critique of Destination Kirkby from this stadium is not going to happen for you. Sorry. You might think you can bluff your way around that but you cant: both P.A.s should have been killed off stone dead as soon as they hit the planning officers desk.

They weren't though for similar reasons: both councils had eyes too big for their stomach and agreed to allow the build if the club could get the wherewithal together to do so. To suggest that the walk through to town for BMD gets LCC out of jail as opposed to KMBC with their Tescodome is absurd. "Knowsley didn't have the proximity to centre to city centre as a fall back"...no, and neither does this new stadium. Clearly. It's a slog to get from that stadium to town. Kirkby was always going to be terrible, but unlike at the docks it wasn't boxed in with a river behind it...and that's not saying it should have gone ahead, btw.

Go and take a look at the mayhem after that last test event...go and look at the effect of what way under half of the capacity that this new stadium holds had on that part of town, then envisage what the situation looks like with 55,000 descending on the area and getting out again. If you believe the agreement to allow that to go ahead at the P.A. stage with zero promise of infrastructure secured by either club or the local state at that point was a decision that stands up - either then or now - you're taking the piss and merely trying to square a circle for the sake of answering a pointed question.

Let me ask you: if you're the planning officer for the BMD stadium proposal do you pass that stadium? In principle I dont think so. But as we know it's down to politics not safety that this went ahead at the docks. The external pressure on the city planning department and safety officers would have been enormous from their bosses who would have just made it plain: "regeneration...free rider...that'll do. Rubber stamp that". Same as what happened at Kirkby.

It's unsafe. It'll remain unsafe for the foreseeable. That had to be denied but it wasn't. And now we have a show, same as it would've been at Kirkby.

As for a political axe to grind: that's just simple deflection because you cant make a logical case to defend the go ahead handed out by what appear to be your mate's in the local state.

The Stadium is built, so im not sure why you think it should have been rejected.

I attended the test event, I got home safely and to be honest, with minimal delay.

Sure it wasnt perfect, but people got in and people got out and they will do when it opens.

 

[davek]

The Stadium is built, so im not sure why you think it should have been rejected.

I attended the test event, I got home safely and to be honest, with minimal delay.

Sure it wasnt perfect, but people got in and people got out and they will do when it opens.

You attended an event attended by 25,000 people at a stadium that'll see 55,000 people passing through it every game.

And IIRC you got back handily because you said you got a bit of luck with a lift after the game or something? Not everyone was as lucky as you. Clearly.

 

[Goat]

You attended an event attended by 25,000 people at a stadium that'll see 55,000 people passing through it every game.

And IIRC you got back handily because you said you got a bit of luck with a lift after the game or something? Not everyone was as lucky as you. Clearly.

I was lucky for sure, but the Stadium wasnt fully open, EVERYBODY left at the same time.

If I didnt get a lift I would have made my way to the station, waited in a queue for a bit and then got the train home.

You are acting like I would have had to hike up a mountain and take a 3 day trek through a jungle in Brazil.

As I said, its not perfect and solutions need to be found, but to suggest it shouldnt have been built cos people will wait in a queue is laughable to me.

 

[davek]

I was lucky for sure, but the Stadium wasnt fully open, EVERYBODY left at the same time.

If I didnt get a lift I would have made my way to the station, waited in a queue for a bit and then got the train home.

You are acting like I would have had to hike up a mountain and take a 3 day trek through a jungle in Brazil.

As I said, its not perfect and solutions need to be found, but to suggest it shouldnt have been built cos people will wait in a queue is laughable to me.

55,000 people on a PL matchday with emotions running high: something bad happens. Im sorry to say that, but it's almost baked into this scenario, and that's why everyone sees Rotheram as public enemy No.1...and righty so.

 

[Goat]

55,000 people on a PL matchday with emotions running high: something bad happens. Im sorry to say that, but it's almost baked into this scenario, and that's why everyone sees Rotheram as public enemy No.1...and righty so.

Everyone?

The fella doesnt even make my top 20.

You cant wait for something to go wrong can you? Disgusting.

But anyway, I said from the start, building a Stadium next to a very dangerous body of water was always gonna end in tears.

 

[davek]

Everyone?

The fella doesnt even make my top 20.

You cant wait for something to go wrong can you? Disgusting.

But anyway, I said from the start, building a Stadium next to a very dangerous body of water was always gonna end in tears.

It wont be on that side of the stadium.

 

[Bluesnapper]

The Stadium is built, so im not sure why you think it should have been rejected.

I attended the test event, I got home safely and to be honest, with minimal delay.

Sure it wasnt perfect, but people got in and people got out and they will do when it opens.

Me too, it only took us 15mins more to get home than from GP and the biggest delay was getting out of the Titanics car park.

 

[davek]

Me too, it only took us 15mins more to get home than from GP and the biggest delay was getting out of the Titanics car park.

It's more about safety than time...but even on that score: it took you 15 minutes longer to get home with 15,000 less people to contend with.

 

[ultra]

I attended the test event, I got home safely and to be honest, with minimal delay.

Me too, it only took us 15mins more to get home than from GP and the biggest delay was getting out of the Titanics car park.

I'm all right, Jack.

Seen plenty of this attitude since the first test event.

 

[COYBL25]

Everyone?

The fella doesnt even make my top 20.

You cant wait for something to go wrong can you? Disgusting.

But anyway, I said from the start, building a Stadium next to a very dangerous body of water was always gonna end in tears.

You have to bear in mind, that he was adamant that the stadium would never be built and all his nonsensical doom mongering since then, is just him back tracking from his initial position of it not being built.

Quite predictable really.

 

[Goat]

I'm all right, Jack.

Seen plenty of this attitude since the first test event.

Im not really alright Jack am I mate?

Cos every week im gonna be part of 52k trying to get out of a poorly designed stadium.

I took my Father in Law to Goodison a few months ago, he cant walk very well, so im vastly aware of problems that others face.

At no point did I dissmiss concerns, im just saying they arent REALLY as bad as Dave is claiming.

Also, I have spent a lot of time down that area and I said from day 1 it was a terrible place for a Stadium, 1 road in, 1 road out.

So to answer your question, no, im not alright, nobody is.

 

[davek]

Im not really alright Jack am I mate?
Cos every week im gonna be part of 52k trying to get out of a poorly designed stadium.
I took my Father in Law to Goodison a few months ago, he cant walk very well, so im vastly aware of problems that others face.
At no point did I dissmiss concerns, im just saying they arent REALLY as bad as Dave is claiming.

So to answer your question, no, im not alright, nobody is.

That was your experience - and based on much less than half of those who will be attending games at that site. And, BTW, I dont think it's just me claiming it is it?

 

[Goat]

That was your experience - and based on much less than half of those who will be attending games at that site. And, BTW, I dont think it's just me claiming it is it?

I think you are the only 1 saying it shouldnt have been built tho.