keioc and sos working together ?

[Tom Hughes]

That's idealistic though, isn't it?

A "third party led effort" (as you call it) is partly inevitable if you're reliant on commercial 'third party' financial backing.

Our priority should always be getting what we require and where we require it..... i.e. a stadium led scheme, and not one in a location that contradicts all modern stadium planning philosophy to satisfy a third party's needs, who then end up contributing very little. As I've said before, even a true state of the art stadium in a poor location is a complete white elephant. Location is the starting point, not the bit you try to make fit afterwards....

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Thats the thing Tom, a 'depth of knowledge regarding stadium development/redevelopment' isn't needed. Just a bit of good old common sense, that being a 60,000 seater stadium costs a few bob. A few bob more than we have.

 

[Duckling]

Can I play the UN peacekeeping role for a moment?

First off, I don't think relations between Elstone/the club and KEIOC are as hostile and antagonistic as between their respective supporter on here. As evidence I present Elstone inviting them for a meeting two days after Kirkby got knocked back. Put yourself in Elstone's shoes at that point. Given you've set up the meeting, what tone are you likely to adopt?

"Thanks a bunch you've screwed everything up for us"? What would be the point? If that's the attitude, why take the meeting at all?

How about: "Look, Kirkby's gone. It's over. We're no longer fighting about that. Let's let bygones be bygones. If you've got ideas, something positive to contribute or information you think we need to know, we'll listen. Having said that, please be aware we are the ones running the club and we make the decisions."

And if there's a measure of conciliation in Elstone's approach, what is KEIOC's response likely to be? "Hey lads, we've got them on the run here, let's keep having a go at everything they do."?

I doubt it. They've got to have accepted that the major shareholders (Kenwright, Earl and Woods) have the right to make the decisions, and Elstone and his team have the responsibility to do their jobs. Whatever you think of their previous/current position and tactics, they're not idiots. They might think that as Evertonians they have a self-imposed responsibility to keep a watch on the club and try to nudge them in the right direction, but they must know they can't force anything.

I'm encouraged by Elstone's statements since DK - "a fresh look at GP", "quality not quantity" - it almost sounds like a slight spin on "suitability over affordability". He's moved slightly in KEIOC's direction and if they're smart, they'll call it progress and praise and welcome it...while waiting to see what the tangible results are.

The important thing is both of them know Kirkby is finished. They (and we) can't keep fighting that battle if we want to make any progress in future. Elstone seems to think KEIOC have something to bring to the table, it's up to him to bring them on board to the club's advantage (and I mean the club, not just the current owners).

And make no mistake, progress is going to be incredibly difficult. I think that's one of the main reasons the whole stadium issue has become so antagonistic and divisive - there is no obviously right answer. The challenges are huge, because we don't have the size of capital assets, turnover or fanbase to make any one option easily achievable. Anything we try to do will be best with problems, and some section of the fans will identify those problems and criticise the choice that's been made.

I wouldn't want to stop anyone pointing out potential flaws, but I am sick and tired of the ad hominem attacks on both sides. Criticise each other's ideas, positions and arguments, but for Everton's sake, recognise we're all Blues at heart.

Right, blue helmet removed, re-commence hostilities

 

[Tom Hughes]

Thats the thing Tom, a 'depth of knowledge regarding stadium development/redevelopment' isn't needed. Just a bit of good old common sense, that being a 60,000 seater stadium costs a few bob. A few bob more than we have.

I assume that discounted DK too then?

and probably every other clubs stadium development in the UK..

There's a big difference between saying we're going to build 60,000 seats afresh on our own, and say getting GP upto 60k. There is also a big difference between enabling scope and/or leverage downtown and out of town (as shown when comparing DK, and KD), as well as their potentials when added to other major developments such as the football quarter concept.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I'm encouraged by Elstone's statements since DK - "a fresh look at GP", "quality not quantity" - it almost sounds like a slight spin on "suitability over affordability".

I think that spin is a stretch to far.

He's moved slightly in KEIOC's direction

If on the basis of above, I disagree.

and if they're smart, they'll call it progress and praise and welcome it...while waiting to see what the tangible results are.

Nothing to do with being smart is it? It's forced. Elstone is hardly going to turn around and condemn any plans made to remain at Goodison, even if it is a last resort.

Other than that, your posts are almost refreshing compared to others we've been subject to over the years.

 

[Hayee]

Thats the thing Tom, a 'depth of knowledge regarding stadium development/redevelopment' isn't needed. Just a bit of good old common sense, that being a 60,000 seater stadium costs a few bob. A few bob more than we have.

also, could we fill it? We rarely fill Goodison

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I assume that discounted DK too then?

No - that had commercial backing you see. Not ideal, but a necessity as "a 60,000 seater stadium costs a few bob. A few bob more than we have"

and probably every other clubs stadium development in the UK..

No, because situations differ

There's a big difference between saying we're going to build 60,000 seats afresh on our own, and say getting GP upto 60k.

Indeed.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

also, could we fill it? We rarely fill Goodison

apparently that's cos they are obstructed and restricted ?????

i've pointed out what our crowds were in the 80's whilst winning stuff but apparently thats irrelevent.

some even say that prices will come down for supporters ?????

 

[moyes_bringin_it_back]

apparently that's cos they are obstructed and restricted ?????

i've pointed out what our crowds were in the 80's whilst winning stuff but apparently thats irrelevent.

some even say that prices will come down for supporters ?????

Its called "market research" mate.

Everyone has what's known as "disposable income" that they usually use to entertain themselves...

Dvds, cinema, football, hobbies etc.

If you price the football on show right, then you can compete better with these other areas where disposable income is spent.

I said on here yesterday the club have completed market research twice in two years and that no doubt they now have a database on

- season ticket holders (age, location, sex etc as well as other info)
- Evertonia members
- other supporters clubs

They also can keep info on enquiries for the likes of last seasons' FA Cup Semi and Final... where demand outstripped supply by 300%.

Thats 120000 names in itself.

I wouldn't worry about filling it.

I'd also let you consider that corporate sales would go up hugely if we had better facilities.

I know because a family relative of mine working for a major (multi billion) North West high-tech manufactuer was looking at venues for its annual awards .... looked at Anfield, Old Trafford etc.

Anfield was described as "tatty".

Basically better corporate facilities are in order as there most definitely is a market in the Northwest for them.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I posted this a while back;

a friend went the match for her first time. Her view from the back of the Glwadys, as you'll know if you have sat there, was that bad she has been well put off...

Other views your typical fan who will go the odd game and be put off will enjoy;

It definitely is an issue.

 

[moyes_bringin_it_back]

I posted this a while back;



It definitely is an issue.

And its not as much of an issue as Anfield's away end where you can't see one goal due to over hang ... plus multiple pillars...

But yes. Could be better.

 

[Hayee]

apparently that's cos they are obstructed and restricted ?????

i've pointed out what our crowds were in the 80's whilst winning stuff but apparently thats irrelevent.

some even say that prices will come down for supporters ?????

not THAT many seats are obstructed/restricted. Seems to me that on a sunday/night match people would rather watch the match on tv!

 

[Tom Hughes]

also, could we fill it? We rarely fill Goodison

Precisely.... and probably more reason to follow a phased incremental increase model which is only really attainable at GP.....

unless someone is going to give us a truly high-quality, flexible new-build (40-45k) for nothing in a good location that is. That's before we consider all the other issues!

 

[Duckling]

I think that spin is a stretch to far.

Yeah, that was a bit of a stretch on my part .

On the other hand, looking back at what the club have said in the past (Loop not big enough for 50,000 seats, Goodison can't be redeveloped to the capacity we need, etc), I think you could characterise it as looking at suitablility to some degree. A capacity of 40,000 with much more, and higher quality, corporate lounges and exec boxes would be both better quality and more suitable. More suitable in that it would boost turnover more than 50,000 with little change in quality...and having said we should leave it alone, I can't help pointing out that's what Kirkby was: 50,000 + a slight increase in corporate (22 exec boxes vs. 12 at GP, more lounges, but further from the city centre, etc).

...I'm not selling you on the change in tone am I? b)

But as I said before, the fact remains we have an almost intractable problem and without major investment any solution will be a compromise to some degree or other...which means someone somewhere will once more use our motto to pan it .

Other than that, your posts are almost refreshing compared to others we've been subject to over the years.

I'd like to think that's because I'm addressing the issues rather than the personalities...but it could just be because I'm being so bland nobody can take offense.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

On the other hand, looking back at what the club have said in the past (Loop not big enough for 50,000 seats, Goodison can't be redeveloped to the capacity we need, etc)

Just out of interest, did the club say it was impossible, or not viable?

A lot tend to say "Everton said it's impossible to develop Goodison... see, they were lying" etc etc, but I'm pretty sure it was always a viability issue.

On another issue, why are Liverpool deciding against redeveloping Anfield?