keioc and sos working together ?

[Neiler]

Tom Cannon will be in on these talks, him being at the University. The man who thought Kirkby was a great idea.

Realistically, these are talks about talks about talks. It has to be that way given the financial situation at both clubs. Still, it keeps the dream alive.

At least there seems some urgencey in looking for a way forward or a focus on the need, its getting to the stage that all parties need to hang their heads in shame.

Great clubs in a great City playing in dated stadiums, when you see lesser clubs and Citys boasting fantastic arenas. It really is sad.

Anyone else see on Match of the Day last night, Sunderlands Stadium of light massively empty.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

At least there seems some urgencey in looking for a way forward or a focus on the need, its getting to the stage that all parties need to hang their heads in shame.

Great clubs in a great City playing in dated stadiums, when you see lesser clubs and Citys boasting fantastic arenas. It really is sad.

Anyone else see on Match of the Day last night, Sunderlands Stadium of light massively empty.

away end ? that was the discussion on motd, the away end.

 

[Duckling]

I was going to post on the other thread (KEIOC Plans booted into touch), but it's been locked between me registering, waiting for confirmation and getting back online. Maybe this should be a new thread (it's certainly long enough on it's own), but I'm not really sure of the etiquette and didn't want to get slated for clogging up the board when there are other threads on the same topic. Anyway...

I don't normally get involved in internet discussions, but there seems to be quite a lot of hostility on this board to KEIOC and, apart from much of it seemingly being based on misquotes and half-truths in recent media reports, I know one or two of them and just couldn't resist countering some of the criticisms that have been thrown around.

Also, like Tom Hughes, I was at the Shareholders' Association meeting last Monday where KEIOC and Trevor Skempton gave their presentations, so although I'm not a member of KEIOC and don't actually have the presentation Colin gave, if anyone has any questions about it, I'll try to answer them.

First off, some people seem to think KEIOC (as a whole or individually) have an "our way or nothing" attitude and will criticise anything the club come up with if they didn't think of it first. I don't think this is the case. Last Monday, Colin and Dave Kelly repeatedly said the Football Quarter idea was just a concept they were putting forward for consideration. They think it has merit and that the club should look at it, but ultimately the club have to decide whether this or any other concept is feasible. They also said some nice things about the club and Robert Elstone in particular.

I can't stress enough that KEIOC are not wedded to this idea.

What they seem to want the board/club to do is take the initiative on the stadium issue. Their perception is that the club have been waiting for somebody to come to them with a solution. They think such a third party will always put their own interests first and Everton's will be of secondary importance. This is how they viewed Destination Kirkby - a new Everton stadium was an enabler for Tesco's larger than would otherwise be allowed retail store.

Now that's just my perception of their perception, so I could be wrong. And even if I'm right, they could be wrong in how Kirkby happened, but that doesn't really matter. They are right that to get the best solution, Everton need to drive the process. They need to lead rather than follow.

Two other points for now...

Firstly, the £700m figure came up in the Q&A session after the presentations were over. Trevor Skempton had presented one option for redeveloping Goodison. FYI, his plan was:

1. Phase 1: Secure the necessary footprint, planing permission, etc and invite developers to tender for the hotel complex behind the Park End.
2. Phase 2: Construct the hotel and main part of a new Park End behind the existing stand while still using the current stand. Knock down the old stand and finish the new in the close-season. This would add about 8k seats and provide some of the corporate facilties we so lack at the moment.
3. Phase 3: Build the main structure of a new Bullens Road behind the current stand before again knocking down the old and completing the new in the close-season. He actually thought the new Bullens Road stand could supercede the Main Stand in terms of housing the changing rooms, media facilities, Directors' Box and main corporate seating/exec. boxes.
4. Phases 4 & 5:Re-roof the Main Stand and Gwladys Street to remove almost all of the restricted view seats. Again, this would be done without playing with reduced capacity.

When asked about cost, he was reluctant to give figures as he said the plans were early drafts/sketches, but based on his experience and expertise, he reckoned the Park End redevelopment would be in the region of £75m of which approx. £25 would be the stand and the rest the hotel and other facilities. The new Bullens would be in the region of £80m. So all the club would have to come up with initially would be £25m. Anything extra on top of that would allow them to take a stake in the hotel development. What stake they took would depend on what they could afford and the deal they struck with the developer.

Trevor was insistent that piecemeal redevelopment should be preferred because a. it allows you to do it over a period of time and you don't need to come up with all the money up front and b. it allows you to gauge demand as capacity gradually increases.

He was equally adamant that before starting on a phased redevelopment the end goal should be mapped out, hence the first phase being securing all the necessary land and permissions for the whole project. That might seem to contradict b, but I guess it's far easier to scale down or abandon later phases than to find out half way through that the authorities won't let you complete the phases.

So how did we get from £25m/£75m + £80m to £700m? Well, Trevor kept stressing that this was just one option, the club might like to look at it, but may finally decide to go with another. You could do it more cheaply with lower quality/standards/capacity or you could go the other way. There's a sliding scale which goes from basic right up to something equivalent to The Emirates, but that was the "Rolls Royce, gold standard" option. Predictably, someone from the floor asked how much an Emirates equivalent would cost. The answer was: If you want the Emirates, you have to pay for the Emirates and it would cost about the same - £600m to £700m.

Now I've no idea how that morphed into the Daily Post/Echo reporting that KEIOC presented plans which would cost £700m. They clearly didn't. I'm not even sure Trevor is a member of KEIOC. He and Colin/Dave certainly had slightly different ideas on some things. I got the impression KEIOC were only presenting the Football Quarter thing which didn't include any specific stadium plans, so they asked Trevor to come along and outline his because people would be expecting that.

There were two people in the room taking copious notes, one of whom was from the club sent by Robert Elstone. I presume the other was the "journalist", but if so he needs to brush up on his shorthand. Now this week we have a report in the Echo saying the clubs/council have rejected the Football Quarter because of the £700m price tag...that's the £700m price tag for a stadium that wasn't suggested, nothing to do with the Football Quarter itself.

I didn't realise there were so many crap journalists out there.

Secondly, the quote about affordability has, as Tom has said previously, been taken out of context. Right at the start, Colin had a slide showing the (I think) five tests Everton (actually Keith Wyness at the time I think) had said any scheme would have to meet: Deliverable, Feasible, Affordable, etc. He said he agreed with them, but there was another one he said should be included: Suitable.

His point was that many things might be affordable but unsuitable. Predictably he thought Kirkby was one - that's his opinion, we're all free to disagree on whether he's right, but he also thought the DW stadium would be affordable but unsuitable, Reading's ground would be affordable but not suitable, jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park would be affordable but not suitable. Hence: "It’s not about affordability. If we build what is affordable, we don’t build anything."

In context, he wasn't saying cost should be completely discarded as a consideration, just that whatever we go for it has to be fit for the history, traditions and ambition of Everton Football Club. First and foremost it has to be suitable for us. We should work out what we need to compete at the top end of the table and then work out how to get it.

He was clearly going for a joke with the jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park thing, but doing so to make a serious point and it's the same one Trevor made really. He was asking Everton to plan for the future and lay the foundations for a return to greatness, not to settle for what we can afford today.

 

[BlackToffee]

I was going to post on the other thread (KEIOC Plans booted into touch), but it's been locked between me registering, waiting for confirmation and getting back online. Maybe this should be a new thread (it's certainly long enough on it's own), but I'm not really sure of the etiquette and didn't want to get slated for clogging up the board when there are other threads on the same topic. Anyway...

I don't normally get involved in internet discussions, but there seems to be quite a lot of hostility on this board to KEIOC and, apart from much of it seemingly being based on misquotes and half-truths in recent media reports, I know one or two of them and just couldn't resist countering some of the criticisms that have been thrown around.

Also, like Tom Hughes, I was at the Shareholders' Association meeting last Monday where KEIOC and Trevor Skempton gave their presentations, so although I'm not a member of KEIOC and don't actually have the presentation Colin gave, if anyone has any questions about it, I'll try to answer them.

First off, some people seem to think KEIOC (as a whole or individually) have an "our way or nothing" attitude and will criticise anything the club come up with if they didn't think of it first. I don't think this is the case. Last Monday, Colin and Dave Kelly repeatedly said the Football Quarter idea was just a concept they were putting forward for consideration. They think it has merit and that the club should look at it, but ultimately the club have to decide whether this or any other concept is feasible. They also said some nice things about the club and Robert Elstone in particular.

I can't stress enough that KEIOC are not wedded to this idea.

What they seem to want the board/club to do is take the initiative on the stadium issue. Their perception is that the club have been waiting for somebody to come to them with a solution. They think such a third party will always put their own interests first and Everton's will be of secondary importance. This is how they viewed Destination Kirkby - a new Everton stadium was an enabler for Tesco's larger than would otherwise be allowed retail store.

Now that's just my perception of their perception, so I could be wrong. And even if I'm right, they could be wrong in how Kirkby happened, but that doesn't really matter. They are right that to get the best solution, Everton need to drive the process. They need to lead rather than follow.

Two other points for now...


Firstly, the £700m figure came up in the Q&A session after the presentations were over. Trevor Skempton had presented one option for redeveloping Goodison. FYI, his plan was:

1. Phase 1: Secure the necessary footprint, planing permission, etc and invite developers to tender for the hotel complex behind the Park End.
2. Phase 2: Construct the hotel and main part of a new Park End behind the existing stand while still using the current stand. Knock down the old stand and finish the new in the close-season. This would add about 8k seats and provide some of the corporate facilties we so lack at the moment.
3. Phase 3: Build the main structure of a new Bullens Road behind the current stand before again knocking down the old and completing the new in the close-season. He actually thought the new Bullens Road stand could supercede the Main Stand in terms of housing the changing rooms, media facilities, Directors' Box and main corporate seating/exec. boxes.
4. Phases 4 & 5:Re-roof the Main Stand and Gwladys Street to remove almost all of the restricted view seats. Again, this would be done without playing with reduced capacity.

When asked about cost, he was reluctant to give figures as he said the plans were early drafts/sketches, but based on his experience and expertise, he reckoned the Park End redevelopment would be in the region of £75m of which approx. £25 would be the stand and the rest the hotel and other facilities. The new Bullens would be in the region of £80m. So all the club would have to come up with initially would be £25m. Anything extra on top of that would allow them to take a stake in the hotel development. What stake they took would depend on what they could afford and the deal they struck with the developer.

Trevor was insistent that piecemeal redevelopment should be preferred because a. it allows you to do it over a period of time and you don't need to come up with all the money up front and b. it allows you to gauge demand as capacity gradually increases.

He was equally adamant that before starting on a phased redevelopment the end goal should be mapped out, hence the first phase being securing all the necessary land and permissions for the whole project. That might seem to contradict b, but I guess it's far easier to scale down or abandon later phases than to find out half way through that the authorities won't let you complete the phases.

So how did we get from £25m/£75m + £80m to £700m? Well, Trevor kept stressing that this was just one option, the club might like to look at it, but may finally decide to go with another. You could do it more cheaply with lower quality/standards/capacity or you could go the other way. There's a sliding scale which goes from basic right up to something equivalent to The Emirates, but that was the "Rolls Royce, gold standard" option. Predictably, someone from the floor asked how much an Emirates equivalent would cost. The answer was: If you want the Emirates, you have to pay for the Emirates and it would cost about the same - £600m to £700m.

Now I've no idea how that morphed into the Daily Post/Echo reporting that KEIOC presented plans which would cost £700m. They clearly didn't. I'm not even sure Trevor is a member of KEIOC. He and Colin/Dave certainly had slightly different ideas on some things. I got the impression KEIOC were only presenting the Football Quarter thing which didn't include any specific stadium plans, so they asked Trevor to come along and outline his because people would be expecting that.

There were two people in the room taking copious notes, one of whom was from the club sent by Robert Elstone. I presume the other was the "journalist", but if so he needs to brush up on his shorthand. Now this week we have a report in the Echo saying the clubs/council have rejected the Football Quarter because of the £700m price tag...that's the £700m price tag for a stadium that wasn't suggested, nothing to do with the Football Quarter itself.

I didn't realise there were so many crap journalists out there.

Secondly, the quote about affordability has, as Tom has said previously, been taken out of context. Right at the start, Colin had a slide showing the (I think) five tests Everton (actually Keith Wyness at the time I think) had said any scheme would have to meet: Deliverable, Feasible, Affordable, etc. He said he agreed with them, but there was another one he said should be included: Suitable.

His point was that many things might be affordable but unsuitable. Predictably he thought Kirkby was one - that's his opinion, we're all free to disagree on whether he's right, but he also thought the DW stadium would be affordable but unsuitable, Reading's ground would be affordable but not suitable, jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park would be affordable but not suitable. Hence: "It’s not about affordability. If we build what is affordable, we don’t build anything."

In context, he wasn't saying cost should be completely discarded as a consideration, just that whatever we go for it has to be fit for the history, traditions and ambition of Everton Football Club. First and foremost it has to be suitable for us. We should work out what we need to compete at the top end of the table and then work out how to get it.

He was clearly going for a joke with the jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park thing, but doing so to make a serious point and it's the same one Trevor made really. He was asking Everton to plan for the future and lay the foundations for a return to greatness, not to settle for what we can afford today.

Sensible post shocker. I doff my hat to you. You've made a cogent presentation of a meeting without diving into the diatribe against Everton that has irked some on this forum.

I'd make a number of points;

1) Nobody seems to be a member of keioc. Do they have members?

2) There is no mention of the "football quarter" in your report, so within what context does this fall within the presentation.

3) The stadia overview is sensible, but for me the time scale is the issue. Taking that aside, was there any mention of how much the stadia / football quarter would cost?

4) "What they (keioc) seem to want the board/club to do is take the initiative on the stadium issue. Their (Keioc's) perception is that the club have been waiting for somebody to come to them with a solution."

OK, I know that is your interpretation of the situation, but that's my interpretation of the arrogance of Keioc and why some think that they seem to believe they're a cut above anyone else. Assuming that Everton are simply ameoba with no thought of their own.

5) While you've not mentioned it, the football quarter is not a plan, but a concept, either people accept the concept or not. Again, I put my view that whatever its called, so long as the area is not part of a regeneration plan, we will find it difficult to re-develop GP.

Anyway, the clarification is good.

 

[davek]

I was going to post on the other thread (KEIOC Plans booted into touch), but it's been locked between me registering, waiting for confirmation and getting back online. Maybe this should be a new thread (it's certainly long enough on it's own), but I'm not really sure of the etiquette and didn't want to get slated for clogging up the board when there are other threads on the same topic. Anyway...

I don't normally get involved in internet discussions, but there seems to be quite a lot of hostility on this board to KEIOC and, apart from much of it seemingly being based on misquotes and half-truths in recent media reports, I know one or two of them and just couldn't resist countering some of the criticisms that have been thrown around.

Also, like Tom Hughes, I was at the Shareholders' Association meeting last Monday where KEIOC and Trevor Skempton gave their presentations, so although I'm not a member of KEIOC and don't actually have the presentation Colin gave, if anyone has any questions about it, I'll try to answer them.

First off, some people seem to think KEIOC (as a whole or individually) have an "our way or nothing" attitude and will criticise anything the club come up with if they didn't think of it first. I don't think this is the case. Last Monday, Colin and Dave Kelly repeatedly said the Football Quarter idea was just a concept they were putting forward for consideration. They think it has merit and that the club should look at it, but ultimately the club have to decide whether this or any other concept is feasible. They also said some nice things about the club and Robert Elstone in particular.

I can't stress enough that KEIOC are not wedded to this idea.

What they seem to want the board/club to do is take the initiative on the stadium issue. Their perception is that the club have been waiting for somebody to come to them with a solution. They think such a third party will always put their own interests first and Everton's will be of secondary importance. This is how they viewed Destination Kirkby - a new Everton stadium was an enabler for Tesco's larger than would otherwise be allowed retail store.

Now that's just my perception of their perception, so I could be wrong. And even if I'm right, they could be wrong in how Kirkby happened, but that doesn't really matter. They are right that to get the best solution, Everton need to drive the process. They need to lead rather than follow.

Two other points for now...

Firstly, the £700m figure came up in the Q&A session after the presentations were over. Trevor Skempton had presented one option for redeveloping Goodison. FYI, his plan was:

1. Phase 1: Secure the necessary footprint, planing permission, etc and invite developers to tender for the hotel complex behind the Park End.
2. Phase 2: Construct the hotel and main part of a new Park End behind the existing stand while still using the current stand. Knock down the old stand and finish the new in the close-season. This would add about 8k seats and provide some of the corporate facilties we so lack at the moment.
3. Phase 3: Build the main structure of a new Bullens Road behind the current stand before again knocking down the old and completing the new in the close-season. He actually thought the new Bullens Road stand could supercede the Main Stand in terms of housing the changing rooms, media facilities, Directors' Box and main corporate seating/exec. boxes.
4. Phases 4 & 5:Re-roof the Main Stand and Gwladys Street to remove almost all of the restricted view seats. Again, this would be done without playing with reduced capacity.

When asked about cost, he was reluctant to give figures as he said the plans were early drafts/sketches, but based on his experience and expertise, he reckoned the Park End redevelopment would be in the region of £75m of which approx. £25 would be the stand and the rest the hotel and other facilities. The new Bullens would be in the region of £80m. So all the club would have to come up with initially would be £25m. Anything extra on top of that would allow them to take a stake in the hotel development. What stake they took would depend on what they could afford and the deal they struck with the developer.

Trevor was insistent that piecemeal redevelopment should be preferred because a. it allows you to do it over a period of time and you don't need to come up with all the money up front and b. it allows you to gauge demand as capacity gradually increases.

He was equally adamant that before starting on a phased redevelopment the end goal should be mapped out, hence the first phase being securing all the necessary land and permissions for the whole project. That might seem to contradict b, but I guess it's far easier to scale down or abandon later phases than to find out half way through that the authorities won't let you complete the phases.

So how did we get from £25m/£75m + £80m to £700m? Well, Trevor kept stressing that this was just one option, the club might like to look at it, but may finally decide to go with another. You could do it more cheaply with lower quality/standards/capacity or you could go the other way. There's a sliding scale which goes from basic right up to something equivalent to The Emirates, but that was the "Rolls Royce, gold standard" option. Predictably, someone from the floor asked how much an Emirates equivalent would cost. The answer was: If you want the Emirates, you have to pay for the Emirates and it would cost about the same - £600m to £700m.

Now I've no idea how that morphed into the Daily Post/Echo reporting that KEIOC presented plans which would cost £700m. They clearly didn't. I'm not even sure Trevor is a member of KEIOC. He and Colin/Dave certainly had slightly different ideas on some things. I got the impression KEIOC were only presenting the Football Quarter thing which didn't include any specific stadium plans, so they asked Trevor to come along and outline his because people would be expecting that.

There were two people in the room taking copious notes, one of whom was from the club sent by Robert Elstone. I presume the other was the "journalist", but if so he needs to brush up on his shorthand. Now this week we have a report in the Echo saying the clubs/council have rejected the Football Quarter because of the £700m price tag...that's the £700m price tag for a stadium that wasn't suggested, nothing to do with the Football Quarter itself.

I didn't realise there were so many crap journalists out there.

Secondly, the quote about affordability has, as Tom has said previously, been taken out of context. Right at the start, Colin had a slide showing the (I think) five tests Everton (actually Keith Wyness at the time I think) had said any scheme would have to meet: Deliverable, Feasible, Affordable, etc. He said he agreed with them, but there was another one he said should be included: Suitable.

His point was that many things might be affordable but unsuitable. Predictably he thought Kirkby was one - that's his opinion, we're all free to disagree on whether he's right, but he also thought the DW stadium would be affordable but unsuitable, Reading's ground would be affordable but not suitable, jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park would be affordable but not suitable. Hence: "It’s not about affordability. If we build what is affordable, we don’t build anything."

In context, he wasn't saying cost should be completely discarded as a consideration, just that whatever we go for it has to be fit for the history, traditions and ambition of Everton Football Club. First and foremost it has to be suitable for us. We should work out what we need to compete at the top end of the table and then work out how to get it.

He was clearly going for a joke with the jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park thing, but doing so to make a serious point and it's the same one Trevor made really. He was asking Everton to plan for the future and lay the foundations for a return to greatness, not to settle for what we can afford today.

Issue put to bed right there.

On the local press front I'd say this: for one of their reporters (and the Post and Echo are obviously from the same stable) to get the issue of costings and what they applied to so outrageously wrong it could be forgiven for being a botched job by a reporter simply not up to snuff; for another, vastly more experienced, reporter like David Bartlett to compound that confusion makes it begin to look like some line is being pushed.

 

[Neiler]

I was going to post on the other thread (KEIOC Plans booted into touch), but it's been locked between me registering, waiting for confirmation and getting back online. Maybe this should be a new thread (it's certainly long enough on it's own), but I'm not really sure of the etiquette and didn't want to get slated for clogging up the board when there are other threads on the same topic. Anyway...

I don't normally get involved in internet discussions, but there seems to be quite a lot of hostility on this board to KEIOC and, apart from much of it seemingly being based on misquotes and half-truths in recent media reports, I know one or two of them and just couldn't resist countering some of the criticisms that have been thrown around.

Also, like Tom Hughes, I was at the Shareholders' Association meeting last Monday where KEIOC and Trevor Skempton gave their presentations, so although I'm not a member of KEIOC and don't actually have the presentation Colin gave, if anyone has any questions about it, I'll try to answer them.

First off, some people seem to think KEIOC (as a whole or individually) have an "our way or nothing" attitude and will criticise anything the club come up with if they didn't think of it first. I don't think this is the case. Last Monday, Colin and Dave Kelly repeatedly said the Football Quarter idea was just a concept they were putting forward for consideration. They think it has merit and that the club should look at it, but ultimately the club have to decide whether this or any other concept is feasible. They also said some nice things about the club and Robert Elstone in particular.

I can't stress enough that KEIOC are not wedded to this idea.

What they seem to want the board/club to do is take the initiative on the stadium issue. Their perception is that the club have been waiting for somebody to come to them with a solution. They think such a third party will always put their own interests first and Everton's will be of secondary importance. This is how they viewed Destination Kirkby - a new Everton stadium was an enabler for Tesco's larger than would otherwise be allowed retail store.

Now that's just my perception of their perception, so I could be wrong. And even if I'm right, they could be wrong in how Kirkby happened, but that doesn't really matter. They are right that to get the best solution, Everton need to drive the process. They need to lead rather than follow.

Two other points for now...



Firstly, the £700m figure came up in the Q&A session after the presentations were over. Trevor Skempton had presented one option for redeveloping Goodison. FYI, his plan was:

1. Phase 1: Secure the necessary footprint, planing permission, etc and invite developers to tender for the hotel complex behind the Park End.
2. Phase 2: Construct the hotel and main part of a new Park End behind the existing stand while still using the current stand. Knock down the old stand and finish the new in the close-season. This would add about 8k seats and provide some of the corporate facilties we so lack at the moment.
3. Phase 3: Build the main structure of a new Bullens Road behind the current stand before again knocking down the old and completing the new in the close-season. He actually thought the new Bullens Road stand could supercede the Main Stand in terms of housing the changing rooms, media facilities, Directors' Box and main corporate seating/exec. boxes.
4. Phases 4 & 5:Re-roof the Main Stand and Gwladys Street to remove almost all of the restricted view seats. Again, this would be done without playing with reduced capacity.

When asked about cost, he was reluctant to give figures as he said the plans were early drafts/sketches, but based on his experience and expertise, he reckoned the Park End redevelopment would be in the region of £75m of which approx. £25 would be the stand and the rest the hotel and other facilities. The new Bullens would be in the region of £80m. So all the club would have to come up with initially would be £25m. Anything extra on top of that would allow them to take a stake in the hotel development. What stake they took would depend on what they could afford and the deal they struck with the developer.

Trevor was insistent that piecemeal redevelopment should be preferred because a. it allows you to do it over a period of time and you don't need to come up with all the money up front and b. it allows you to gauge demand as capacity gradually increases.

He was equally adamant that before starting on a phased redevelopment the end goal should be mapped out, hence the first phase being securing all the necessary land and permissions for the whole project. That might seem to contradict b, but I guess it's far easier to scale down or abandon later phases than to find out half way through that the authorities won't let you complete the phases.

So how did we get from £25m/£75m + £80m to £700m? Well, Trevor kept stressing that this was just one option, the club might like to look at it, but may finally decide to go with another. You could do it more cheaply with lower quality/standards/capacity or you could go the other way. There's a sliding scale which goes from basic right up to something equivalent to The Emirates, but that was the "Rolls Royce, gold standard" option. Predictably, someone from the floor asked how much an Emirates equivalent would cost. The answer was: If you want the Emirates, you have to pay for the Emirates and it would cost about the same - £600m to £700m.

Now I've no idea how that morphed into the Daily Post/Echo reporting that KEIOC presented plans which would cost £700m. They clearly didn't. I'm not even sure Trevor is a member of KEIOC. He and Colin/Dave certainly had slightly different ideas on some things. I got the impression KEIOC were only presenting the Football Quarter thing which didn't include any specific stadium plans, so they asked Trevor to come along and outline his because people would be expecting that.

There were two people in the room taking copious notes, one of whom was from the club sent by Robert Elstone. I presume the other was the "journalist", but if so he needs to brush up on his shorthand. Now this week we have a report in the Echo saying the clubs/council have rejected the Football Quarter because of the £700m price tag...that's the £700m price tag for a stadium that wasn't suggested, nothing to do with the Football Quarter itself.

I didn't realise there were so many crap journalists out there.

Secondly, the quote about affordability has, as Tom has said previously, been taken out of context. Right at the start, Colin had a slide showing the (I think) five tests Everton (actually Keith Wyness at the time I think) had said any scheme would have to meet: Deliverable, Feasible, Affordable, etc. He said he agreed with them, but there was another one he said should be included: Suitable.

His point was that many things might be affordable but unsuitable. Predictably he thought Kirkby was one - that's his opinion, we're all free to disagree on whether he's right, but he also thought the DW stadium would be affordable but unsuitable, Reading's ground would be affordable but not suitable, jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park would be affordable but not suitable. Hence: "It’s not about affordability. If we build what is affordable, we don’t build anything."

In context, he wasn't saying cost should be completely discarded as a consideration, just that whatever we go for it has to be fit for the history, traditions and ambition of Everton Football Club. First and foremost it has to be suitable for us. We should work out what we need to compete at the top end of the table and then work out how to get it.

He was clearly going for a joke with the jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park thing, but doing so to make a serious point and it's the same one Trevor made really. He was asking Everton to plan for the future and lay the foundations for a return to greatness, not to settle for what we can afford today.

Excellent post mate, its really good to have a truthfull account of the discourse. Some food for thought certainly its important to have options.

I still think given the cost - which i would say is very optimistic, yet i can understand Trevors reluctance to get into the finace side of cost. Increasing the footprint as per his recomendation will cost a pretty penny and overall not convinced about the hotel option of it all in fact i think its a bad idea especially the outsourcing, before we even get to the redevelopment of the football ground that is significant cost involved IMO.

Secondly i think moving to compleatley different site maybe the best option especially if a partner can be found. The numbers and problems of redeveleopment that exist on the Goodison site simply may not be there at another site IMO. I also think the new Anfeild is going to cause the viability of the ground in its current site massive problems especially if their dropping a reported 400 million, i think our only saving grace to be honest is to move somewhere on the waterfront or closer to the city. Just my opinion like!

 

[Tom Hughes]

I was going to post on the other thread (KEIOC Plans booted into touch), but it's been locked between me registering, waiting for confirmation and getting back online. Maybe this should be a new thread (it's certainly long enough on it's own), but I'm not really sure of the etiquette and didn't want to get slated for clogging up the board when there are other threads on the same topic. Anyway...

I don't normally get involved in internet discussions, but there seems to be quite a lot of hostility on this board to KEIOC and, apart from much of it seemingly being based on misquotes and half-truths in recent media reports, I know one or two of them and just couldn't resist countering some of the criticisms that have been thrown around.

Also, like Tom Hughes, I was at the Shareholders' Association meeting last Monday where KEIOC and Trevor Skempton gave their presentations, so although I'm not a member of KEIOC and don't actually have the presentation Colin gave, if anyone has any questions about it, I'll try to answer them.

First off, some people seem to think KEIOC (as a whole or individually) have an "our way or nothing" attitude and will criticise anything the club come up with if they didn't think of it first. I don't think this is the case. Last Monday, Colin and Dave Kelly repeatedly said the Football Quarter idea was just a concept they were putting forward for consideration. They think it has merit and that the club should look at it, but ultimately the club have to decide whether this or any other concept is feasible. They also said some nice things about the club and Robert Elstone in particular.

I can't stress enough that KEIOC are not wedded to this idea.

What they seem to want the board/club to do is take the initiative on the stadium issue. Their perception is that the club have been waiting for somebody to come to them with a solution. They think such a third party will always put their own interests first and Everton's will be of secondary importance. This is how they viewed Destination Kirkby - a new Everton stadium was an enabler for Tesco's larger than would otherwise be allowed retail store.

Now that's just my perception of their perception, so I could be wrong. And even if I'm right, they could be wrong in how Kirkby happened, but that doesn't really matter. They are right that to get the best solution, Everton need to drive the process. They need to lead rather than follow.

Two other points for now...

Firstly, the £700m figure came up in the Q&A session after the presentations were over. Trevor Skempton had presented one option for redeveloping Goodison. FYI, his plan was:

1. Phase 1: Secure the necessary footprint, planing permission, etc and invite developers to tender for the hotel complex behind the Park End.
2. Phase 2: Construct the hotel and main part of a new Park End behind the existing stand while still using the current stand. Knock down the old stand and finish the new in the close-season. This would add about 8k seats and provide some of the corporate facilties we so lack at the moment.
3. Phase 3: Build the main structure of a new Bullens Road behind the current stand before again knocking down the old and completing the new in the close-season. He actually thought the new Bullens Road stand could supercede the Main Stand in terms of housing the changing rooms, media facilities, Directors' Box and main corporate seating/exec. boxes.
4. Phases 4 & 5:Re-roof the Main Stand and Gwladys Street to remove almost all of the restricted view seats. Again, this would be done without playing with reduced capacity.

When asked about cost, he was reluctant to give figures as he said the plans were early drafts/sketches, but based on his experience and expertise, he reckoned the Park End redevelopment would be in the region of £75m of which approx. £25 would be the stand and the rest the hotel and other facilities. The new Bullens would be in the region of £80m. So all the club would have to come up with initially would be £25m. Anything extra on top of that would allow them to take a stake in the hotel development. What stake they took would depend on what they could afford and the deal they struck with the developer.

Trevor was insistent that piecemeal redevelopment should be preferred because a. it allows you to do it over a period of time and you don't need to come up with all the money up front and b. it allows you to gauge demand as capacity gradually increases.

He was equally adamant that before starting on a phased redevelopment the end goal should be mapped out, hence the first phase being securing all the necessary land and permissions for the whole project. That might seem to contradict b, but I guess it's far easier to scale down or abandon later phases than to find out half way through that the authorities won't let you complete the phases.

So how did we get from £25m/£75m + £80m to £700m? Well, Trevor kept stressing that this was just one option, the club might like to look at it, but may finally decide to go with another. You could do it more cheaply with lower quality/standards/capacity or you could go the other way. There's a sliding scale which goes from basic right up to something equivalent to The Emirates, but that was the "Rolls Royce, gold standard" option. Predictably, someone from the floor asked how much an Emirates equivalent would cost. The answer was: If you want the Emirates, you have to pay for the Emirates and it would cost about the same - £600m to £700m.

Now I've no idea how that morphed into the Daily Post/Echo reporting that KEIOC presented plans which would cost £700m. They clearly didn't. I'm not even sure Trevor is a member of KEIOC. He and Colin/Dave certainly had slightly different ideas on some things. I got the impression KEIOC were only presenting the Football Quarter thing which didn't include any specific stadium plans, so they asked Trevor to come along and outline his because people would be expecting that.

There were two people in the room taking copious notes, one of whom was from the club sent by Robert Elstone. I presume the other was the "journalist", but if so he needs to brush up on his shorthand. Now this week we have a report in the Echo saying the clubs/council have rejected the Football Quarter because of the £700m price tag...that's the £700m price tag for a stadium that wasn't suggested, nothing to do with the Football Quarter itself.

I didn't realise there were so many crap journalists out there.

Secondly, the quote about affordability has, as Tom has said previously, been taken out of context. Right at the start, Colin had a slide showing the (I think) five tests Everton (actually Keith Wyness at the time I think) had said any scheme would have to meet: Deliverable, Feasible, Affordable, etc. He said he agreed with them, but there was another one he said should be included: Suitable.

His point was that many things might be affordable but unsuitable. Predictably he thought Kirkby was one - that's his opinion, we're all free to disagree on whether he's right, but he also thought the DW stadium would be affordable but unsuitable, Reading's ground would be affordable but not suitable, jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park would be affordable but not suitable. Hence: "It’s not about affordability. If we build what is affordable, we don’t build anything."

In context, he wasn't saying cost should be completely discarded as a consideration, just that whatever we go for it has to be fit for the history, traditions and ambition of Everton Football Club. First and foremost it has to be suitable for us. We should work out what we need to compete at the top end of the table and then work out how to get it.

He was clearly going for a joke with the jumpers for goalposts on Stanley Park thing, but doing so to make a serious point and it's the same one Trevor made really. He was asking Everton to plan for the future and lay the foundations for a return to greatness, not to settle for what we can afford today.

Mr Duckling,
Thankyou for your Summary. Glad to see someone else in attendance was paying attention to the actual content of the presentation, and hope this clarifies a few things to those who weren't there.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

still can't see why the presentation isn't in the public arena though, to put to bed any rumours/ inaccuracies etc.

it was 'a presentation' not something that was an issue just for shareholders and for them to vote on.

failure to make it available for everyone to see and read only stokes the fires that burn on the internet and such.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Excellent post mate, its really good to have a truthfull account of the discourse. Some food for thought certainly its important to have options.

I still think given the cost - which i would say is very optimistic, yet i can understand Trevors reluctance to get into the finace side of cost. Increasing the footprint as per his recomendation will cost a pretty penny and overall not convinced about the hotel option of it all in fact i think its a bad idea especially the outsourcing, before we even get to the redevelopment of the football ground that is significant cost involved IMO.

Secondly i think moving to compleatley different site maybe the best option especially if a partner can be found. The numbers and problems of redeveleopment that exist on the Goodison site simply may not be there at another site IMO. I also think the new Anfeild is going to cause the viability of the ground in its current site massive problems especially if their dropping a reported 400 million, i think our only saving grace to be honest is to move somewhere on the waterfront or closer to the city. Just my opinion like!

Neiler,

I agree all options need to be looked at. The merits for a new build are obvious as you state, especially if a more central site and partner can be secured, as infrastructure and profile could be greatly increased. I can also understand how people's apprehension about developing land that is currently occupied adds to the attraction of a blank canvas elsewhere. I think the whole point of the original protest was that the blank canvas couldn't be just anywhere..... and certainly not peripheral.

Trevor has made cost estimates based on similar developments he has been involved in and stadium design guides.... In some respects he has deliberately erred on the side of caution since he is determined not to make false promises because with his background he knows the implications of this and how people readily get hung out to dry for such, and he is also an Evertonian with no wish to deceive. As regards the cost for a brand new Bullens, it should be stressed that what he is advocating would not be a bog standard Kirkby clone (side stands were only approx £30m each, with some horrendous viewing distances), but a truly state of the art proper over-lapping double or even triple-decker with high quality boxes and lounges abundent.

The development description I hinted on the previous thread was regarding extensions only..... this was purely a conservation type approach, as many might feel that there is real quality and certainly history in the old Leitch structures, with most of their misgivings quite easily solved. It also represents the smallest nett new capacity requirement, given that probably over 36,000 of the current capacity is very redeemable (certainly in the short to medium term)..... and therefore can also represent the smallest cost, and/or opportunity to break-up the overall cost that is not so possible with a new build.

Increasingly commentators refer to Goodison's traditional charm, and intense atmosphere.... I think hard-nosed commercialism can be added to this real asset, by the addition of quality capacity and back-of-house facilities, as well as general refurbishment to enhance these classic stand(s). One thing's for certain, there is a certain intimacy of these old over-lapping structures that is not readily replicated anew, where c-value-led design throws rows further and further from the action. I think it is all very comparable to the Fenway and Wriggley field scenario in the states where these grand-old-ladies of American Baseball are increasingly reverred as the finest examples of their genre, and influence many new-builds, and have survived the urge to relocate out of town in the 60's and 70's..... only to see that process completely reversed. Lessons to be learnt perhaps?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Firstly, the £700m figure came up in the Q&A session after the presentations were over. Trevor Skempton had presented one option for redeveloping Goodison. So how did we get from £25m/£75m + £80m to £700m? Well, Trevor kept stressing that this was just one option, the club might like to look at it, but may finally decide to go with another. You could do it more cheaply with lower quality/standards/capacity or you could go the other way. There's a sliding scale which goes from basic right up to something equivalent to The Emirates, but that was the "Rolls Royce, gold standard" option. Predictably, someone from the floor asked how much an Emirates equivalent would cost. The answer was: If you want the Emirates, you have to pay for the Emirates and it would cost about the same - £600m to £700m.

Now I've no idea how that morphed into the Daily Post/Echo reporting that KEIOC presented plans which would cost £700m. They clearly didn't. I'm not even sure Trevor is a member of KEIOC.
I didn't realise there were so many crap journalists out there.

I meant to come back to this issue of £700m..... I don't remember Trevor actually stating this figure at all. I do remember him using a £200m+ figure with regards to general construction costs for 60k capacity comparable in quality to the emirates. In actual fact..... The Emirates cost approx £350m with a major chunk of that factored against high cost of land, preparation and anciliaries given the nature of the site and infrastructure issues. Little of which applies to Walton, as it is not a toxic land fill, and is the cheapest real estate around any stadium in the league, and of course by virtue of the fact that we already own 80-90% of the required footprint....... £700m certainly did not appear on the presentation, and as I said before would make it far more expensive than even Wembley per seat!

 

[Number_25]

JUST LEAVE GOODISON AS IT IS

IF THE ARL' LADY DOESN'T NEED A FACELIFT

DON'T GIVER ER' ONE.

 

[BlackToffee]

I was going to post on the other thread (KEIOC Plans booted into touch), but it's been locked between me registering, waiting for confirmation and getting back online. Maybe this should be a new thread (it's certainly long enough on it's own), but I'm not really sure of the etiquette and didn't want to get slated for clogging up the board when there are other threads on the same topic. Anyway...
.

I'll make my points again then. Would be nice if you could tackle the football quarter part as this seems to have not been mentioned in the report, or Tom can fill in, without the anti Everton diatribe of course.

As I said before, Duckling has presented a sensible post of proceeding. I doff my hat to you. You've made a cogent presentation of a meeting without diving into the diatribe against Everton that has irked some on this forum.

I'd make a number of points;

1) Nobody seems to be a member of keioc. Do they have members?

2) There is no mention of the "football quarter" in your report, so within what context does this fall within the presentation.

3) The stadia overview is sensible, but for me the time scale is the issue. Any mention of that, and taking that aside, was there any mention of how much the stadia / football quarter would cost altogether?

4) "What they (keioc) seem to want the board/club to do is take the initiative on the stadium issue. Their (Keioc's) perception is that the club have been waiting for somebody to come to them with a solution."

OK, I know that is your interpretation of the situation, but that's my interpretation of my perceived arrogance of Keioc and why some think that they seem to believe they're a cut above anyone else. Assuming that Everton are simply ameoba with no thought of their own.

5) While you've not mentioned it, the football quarter is not a plan, but a concept, either people accept the concept or not. We shouldn't get drawn into thinking that keioc have devised an alternative plan, except the proposals around GP, which is by another person, who again is not a member of keioc.

Again, I put my view that whatever its called, so long as the area is not part of a regeneration plan, we will find it difficult to re-develop GP.

Anyway, the clarification is good though a bit more would be useful.

 

[BlackToffee]

JUST LEAVE GOODISON AS IT IS

IF THE ARL' LADY DOESN'T NEED A FACELIFT

DON'T GIVER ER' ONE.

I'd love to agree with you, but I don't. She needs her tits tucked in, some botox all over the shop and a strict fitness regime to compete with the rest of the more money making bit of skirt on the block.

 

[Neiler]

Neiler,

I agree all options need to be looked at. The merits for a new build are obvious as you state, especially if a more central site and partner can be secured, as infrastructure and profile could be greatly increased. I can also understand how people's apprehension about developing land that is currently occupied adds to the attraction of a blank canvas elsewhere. I think the whole point of the original protest was that the blank canvas couldn't be just anywhere..... and certainly not peripheral.

Trevor has made cost estimates based on similar developments he has been involved in and stadium design guides.... In some respects he has deliberately erred on the side of caution since he is determined not to make false promises because with his background he knows the implications of this and how people readily get hung out to dry for such, and he is also an Evertonian with no wish to deceive. As regards the cost for a brand new Bullens, it should be stressed that what he is advocating would not be a bog standard Kirkby clone (side stands were only approx £30m each, with some horrendous viewing distances), but a truly state of the art proper over-lapping double or even triple-decker with high quality boxes and lounges abundent.

The development description I hinted on the previous thread was regarding extensions only..... this was purely a conservation type approach, as many might feel that there is real quality and certainly history in the old Leitch structures, with most of their misgivings quite easily solved. It also represents the smallest nett new capacity requirement, given that probably over 36,000 of the current capacity is very redeemable (certainly in the short to medium term)..... and therefore can also represent the smallest cost, and/or opportunity to break-up the overall cost that is not so possible with a new build.

Increasingly commentators refer to Goodison's traditional charm, and intense atmosphere.... I think hard-nosed commercialism can be added to this real asset, by the addition of quality capacity and back-of-house facilities, as well as general refurbishment to enhance these classic stand(s). One thing's for certain, there is a certain intimacy of these old over-lapping structures that is not readily replicated anew, where c-value-led design throws rows further and further from the action. I think it is all very comparable to the Fenway and Wriggley field scenario in the states where these grand-old-ladies of American Baseball are increasingly reverred as the finest examples of their genre, and influence many new-builds, and have survived the urge to relocate out of town in the 60's and 70's..... only to see that process completely reversed. Lessons to be learnt perhaps?

It remains to be seen mate i still think the cost is conservative and i see no need to add captial projects such as a hotel or increaseing the footprint before actually getting onto improving the actual ground given our limited ability fiscally. Thats even befoe you begin to speak about a football quater, though i take on board the point that KEIOC and Trev were not singing from the same hyme-sheet (that in itself is a bit mystifying). I think these will be telling factors all said when a descion is made to either move to a new site or redevelop Goodison. I think Trev mentioned that his rough figures were on a slideing scale and i took from Ducklings excellent post that the estemated 150 mill (though i realise this can be made in gradual amounts) were at the bottom end of such redesgins slideing scales that he himself has been involved in. This reminds me of what Bob was saying yesterday about quality over quantity and getting bang for your buck, has to be said 150 mill is alot to add (even with the ifs and buts) for 10 - 15 k seats.

A new site on the other hand with a balnk canvas for me sounds like the logical idea especially if their is scope to redevelop or increase capcity. Certainly a 150 mill would put a large chunk in a new ground if a partner or the council were on board, while also factoring in the sale of Goodison. I just cant see how staying in Goodison is the best option for the future to be honest. All of the above goes to show what a massive oppurtunity DK really was. As i said i would have major concerns about the ability of a redeveloped Goodison to compeate in terms of corporote hospitality, non match day events and sponsorship with a 400 mill new stadium beside it.

Im not comitted at this stage and would prefer to leave all the cards on the table but my innital museings would be to move to a new site - i think its best for the future.

 

[davek]

I'll make my points again then.

I'd make a number of points;

1) Nobody seems to be a member of keioc. Do they have members?

KEIOC have four officers. That's it as far as I'm aware. Outside that they have supporters who can lend a hand with some area of expertise.

2) There is no mention of the "football quarter" in your report, so within what context does this fall within the presentation.
You've been told that the presntation fell into two parts: the redevelopemnt of GP drawing on existing analysis of a piecemeal development; the flagging up of an idea that could encompass said GP redevelopment withing a broader cultural quarter - and where possible funding could come from to make this happen.

3) The stadia overview is sensible, but for me the time scale is the issue. Any mention of that, and taking that aside, was there any mention of how much the stadia / football quarter would cost altogether?

Time scale has already been mentioned: it can be piecemeal and set over a number of seasons so that capacity is never negatively affected. You've been given broad brush stroke costings on peicemeal redevelopment and you've been tolsd that no figures were mentioned for a multi-dimesional cultural quarter.

4) "What they (keioc) seem to want the board/club to do is take the initiative on the stadium issue. Their (Keioc's) perception is that the club have been waiting for somebody to come to them with a solution."

OK, I know that is your interpretation of the situation, but that's my interpretation of my perceived arrogance of Keioc and why some think that they seem to believe they're a cut above anyone else. Assuming that Everton are simply ameoba with no thought of their own.

That's not a question!!!

5) While you've not mentioned it, the football quarter is not a plan, but a concept, either people accept the concept or not. We shouldn't get drawn into thinking that keioc have devised an alternative plan, except the proposals around GP, which is by another person, who again is not a member of keioc.

It's been confirmed to you that it is a concept and not a concrete plan.



You see you were just repeating questions that had already been taken care of.