keioc and sos working together ?

[Tom Hughes]

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.

I find this slightly contradictory. You say at the top of this paragraph that you think it is a conservative costing yet, at the bottom you feel it is a lot......? Not sure where the £150m figure comes from. Trevor stated that one option might be a complete rebuild of the Bullens Side.... he quotes approx £80m cost.... that is £4-5k per seat (which is of the order of the emirates in quality terms). Bottom of any sliding scale would be the likes of barr's design which was £2k per seat, even the land acquisition cost would not move this much in terms of the stadium costs as opposed to overall development costs. The Park end can have a straight forward new tier/extension added for a lesser rate, and the cost quoted I believe was more like £3-4k per seat..... Both these cost/seat values exceed that estimated for similar extensions elsewhere, hence the conservative descriptor. See what is being planned at both Sheffield clubs for instance. Bottom of the total cost scale could be adding capacity by simple extension by way of the conservation-led scheme as opposed to whole new stands. Each method can give the desired effect of breaching 50k unobstructed seats, but just adding 12-16k new seats need never cost as much as building 50k afresh.... even if you go to the top of the scale (a la emirates), and that's why the majority of footy clubs have pursued this method to date.

TBH, the only mystifying thing appears to be that Trevor was focussed only on discussing a stadium redevelopment, and as stated just one approach of potentially many, whereas Dave Kelly and Colin Fitz discussed the other issues relating to the process to date, where the club stood, and the Football Quarter concept.

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.

Selling GP might be beneficial if it wasn't already mortgaged to its full value as is rumoured. As far as DK being a great opportunity, it begs the question why then didn't the club follow through with it? Enabling was only ever going to realise £10-12m tops. The point was, the transport issues alone rendered it a complete non-starter. No amount of money could've turned that around.

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.

You might be right, and each option should be judged on its merits.

 

[Duckling]

Christ! It takes me so long to write these massive essays I get logged out and now I've lost my post. AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

I'll try to answer all the questions raised one by one. Please bear with me, I do have a life (not meant to get at anyone, but I'm amazed at the amount of time some people seem to find to post on the web - maybe it's just that I think & type more slowly than you guys ).

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.

Thanks. I think diatribes against Everton is a bit strong though. We all want what's best for the club, that doesn't mean we have to agree with everything the current custodians (or each other) say or do, but we can show a little respect while we argue. Maybe it's 'cos I largely agree with him/them, but I reckon Tom/KEIOC have taken more abuse here than they've dished out to Kenwright et al...or maybe I haven't been around long enough?

I'd make a number of points;

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

No idea what their structure is like. They have a website with a contact us page, why not ask them? They're certainly not a mass membership organisation I think, but if anyone has particular expertise they'll invite them in and welcome their views.

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

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.

I think you've answered your own question and put the KEIOC position in a nutshell there. We can't tap the high-end corporate market in London like Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea and to a lesser extent West Ham, Fulham, etc can. We haven't got the massive global fanbase of a United/Liverpool based on 20-30 years of continued on-field success, and we haven't got a billionaire sugar daddy like Man City or Aston Villa. So we've got to be innovative and inventive in generating new income.

Colin laid out the challenge Everton face in competing financially with those clubs, with a focus on matchday revenues. The Football Quarter concept is about the regeneration of north Liverpool backed by public bodies (City Council, EU, NWDA, Sport England, Universities, UNESCO, etc). He contended that transforming the environment would give Everton a boost in terms of corporate and non-matchday earning potential. It's still up to the club to leverage that market though.

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?

No. Not from Colin on the Football Quarter at least. Firstly, it's not for Everton or LFC to fund anyway, regeneration should be the responsibility of public bodies. The clubs and their histories would just be acting as the anchors on which the concept is built. Secondly, there's no reason to at this early stage. you've got to see whether all sides can get behind it as a concept first, then you can find out how much is needed. The public bodies might then back out, but there's no need to name a figure which would be a stab in the dark and a weapon to beat people over the head with later when the actual costs are determined.

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.

The truth may be somewhere in between. There are good people at the club, intelligent people who know their job and work hard at it. But you can't ignore history. Several times in recent decades, off-field matters have not been handled well. The things that work smoothly aren't as prominent simply because they work smoothly. It's natural people focus on the more prominent aspects that they see, and most often these are the failures.

In his presentation, Colin expressed some admiration for Robert Elstone, so he clearly doesn't think he's an amoeba or an idiot. He does seem to think the club have wasted 5 years on a project (Kirkby) which was a no-goer from the start and even if it came off would not have bridged the off-field gap for Everton. Robert called KEIOC in for a meeting 2 days after the Kirkby decision, so fingers crossed there is little or no animosity or what there is can be worked round for the good of the club.

Anyway, the clarification is good.

Happy to help. If I can just keep my posts down to a couple of pages at most I might get into this discussion forum lark

 

[best little spaniard]

Thing is Neiler, as much as we'd like a brand spanking new stadium, if DK wasn't affordabe, there's not a hope in hell of a new build (unless we could make hundred of millions a season with it, to finance loans). The only way I can see us going is a piecemeal development of Goodison with, as Tom says, a final plan. Something to aspire to. Say a 55k seat arena, but just do a bit at a time. That would be nice.

 

[Number Seis]

Duckling they are excellent contributions, thank for clearing that up and producing a post without predujice.

 

[Duckling]

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.

I'm dubious myself on the hotel thing. Weekend football supporters, yes. Weekday business people? At the moment, no. I think the Football Quarter or something like it is a pre-requisite for this kind of enabler. With that in place, a hotel or similar would be much more attractive.

Not sure what you mean by the outsourcing, getting a private developer in to build/run the hotel? Everton's management should focus on the football club business. If they can get a cut of the hotel income by finding the money to pay for part of the build, that's great and helps finance the subsequent phases, but they shouldn't be building/running a hotel or other enabler in-house, it's not their expertise.

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!

The main problem with a new site is all the money needs to be found up front. If you can re-develop one stand and the increase in revenue outstrips the increase in costs (both the running costs and any debt taken on to fund the initial rebuild), the difference can then be put into the subsequent phases. As Trevor said though, you need to get your final goal squared off first so you aren't left hanging halfway through the process.

 

[Duckling]

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.

KEIOC's position is probably that the presentation is more than just the slides themselves. Without the presenter giving additional information about what's on screen, it's probably less informative.

Dave Kelly said they'd be taking it out to supporter's groups on a kind of roadshow. If you're a member of a supporters club or can just get a room and 20-30 other Evertonians in to listen and ask questions, why not contact them and see if they'll include you?

If you get short shrift, you can always post the email up here and we can all see KEIOC for what they really are.

 

[Duckling]

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!

I could be wrong on that then. It was towards the end of a very long meeting (close to 10:30?) at the end of a working day. Certainly if you want to construct an Emirates equivalent, the construction costs would be similar to constructing the Emirates, no? Land purchase and preparation may be a different matter.

 

[Duckling]

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.

No. If you don't have at least the permissions for the footprint expansion up front, why embark on a process which can never be completed. If the footprint really can't be expanded (and LCC have given solid indications that they think it can), we really are better off moving, even given the higher upfront costs of doing so.

People have said the ground can be redeveloped appropriately on the existing footprint. I'm not an expert, but this does seem at least unlikely to me. If it can be conclusively proved, then OK, but you'd still need to get certain permissions up front anyway and I'm convinced that we shouldn't get locked in to anything we aren't sure we can get to the end of successfully.

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.

Again, no. I obviously wasn't clear enough about Trevor's presentation in the first post. Sorry. His idea was not at the bargain basement end. The Gwladys Street End, Main Stand and Park End seating would be roughly of the current standard. there would be improvements to concourses and extra corporate boxes/lounges at the Park End. The big improvement in standard/quality and hence average ticket prices would be in the new Bullens Road which would also take over from the Main Stand in housing the admin, player and press facilities, etc. He envisages most of the Bullens Road seating to be higher standard in terms of leg-room, facilities, etc than the other sides and hence contribute to increased revenue more than the other areas (aside from the new corporate boxes).

While the increase in capacity would be 8-15k, the increase in revenue would be out of proportion to this as the better facilities and fewer obstructed views would justify higher pricing.

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.

That's fair enough. Particularly the point about competing with LFC's new super stadium. It does of course pre-suppose they can find the money to build it, but then the devil will always help his own.

I don't really have the expertise to judge whether moving or re-developing is better, so I have to go with the experts. The club have said in the past that redevelopment is a non-starter, but the only evidence they could come up with was from a company who would profit from the move to Kirkby. Independent experts have said it could be done, but may have their own angle in pitching for the business. As simple fans, we've just not had the transparent information needed to make a judgement.

 

[Duckling]

Right, probably about time I did some real work! Hope I've given as much info as I can. I'll check back later to see if there's any follow up, just keep it civil eh? As I said, we all want Everton back winning trophies and beating the kopites. We sometimes disagree on the best way of getting there, but KEIOC, Tom, Black Toffee, Neiler and every other Evertonian (including in my opinion, Bill Kenwright) are all ultimately on the same side. If we can at least recognise that we'll be halfway there already.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

duckling.....For I is a wool, they wont want to come over the boundary for fear of it turning into deliverance

If you keep getting logged out mate and losing your posts, before hitting 'submit reply' highlight your text and copy it. I used to have that problem and it used to drive me nuts, it's fixed now and drives everyone else nuts.

BTW it was fixed by ditching internet explorer in favour of chrome

 

[best little spaniard]

Cheers Duckling, much appreciated.


Thinking back to Goodison, if that £25 mil park end figure is true, what does that raise the attendance to? I presume about 46k. That's more than enough to replace any obstructed views.

 

[Duckling]

Cheers Reidy, the first time it happened, I seemed to be able to page-back and recover the post, today that didn't work, so I made sure I composed in notepad first anyway...rest assured I wouldn't use Internet Exploder unless there was absolutely no choice

 

[Duckling]

Cheers Duckling, much appreciated.


Thinking back to Goodison, if that £25 mil park end figure is true, what does that raise the attendance to? I presume about 46k. That's more than enough to replace any obstructed views.

I thought 53% were obstructed views according to the club?

I am in danger of mis-representing Trevor's views if I'm too specific, so take all I say with the proviso that I'm recalling from imperfect memory and as good an architect as Trevor may be, as a public speaker, he does um and ah a bit.

IIRC, the £25m would buy 8k extra seats at the Park End, but would not include any of the corporate/dining facilities which is where the real money is. So yes, they may offset the obstructed views elsewhere, but would not on their own provide the revenue boost we need. Everton would need to come up with at least part of the other £50m to take some of the money from the higher spec parts of the new stand and the non-matchday activities.

Extrapolating a bit...for approx. £25m we could provide decent views for the vast majority of match-going Evertonians (and potentially therefore screw more money from them), but without tapping the corporate market more effectively we'll only be securing our position in the middle group of Premiership clubs, not actually making any gains on the top 6/7/8.

That's my reading of it anyway.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Extrapolating a bit...for approx. £25m we could provide decent views for the vast majority of match-going Evertonians (and potentially therefore screw more money from them), but without tapping the corporate market more effectively we'll only be securing our position in the middle group of Premiership clubs, not actually making any gains on the top 6/7/8.

That's my reading of it anyway.

i pointed this out and someone yesterday claimed that the seats would be cheaper

 

[Neiler]

No. If you don't have at least the permissions for the footprint expansion up front, why embark on a process which can never be completed. If the footprint really can't be expanded (and LCC have given solid indications that they think it can), we really are better off moving, even given the higher upfront costs of doing so.

People have said the ground can be redeveloped appropriately on the existing footprint. I'm not an expert, but this does seem at least unlikely to me. If it can be conclusively proved, then OK, but you'd still need to get certain permissions up front anyway and I'm convinced that we shouldn't get locked in to anything we aren't sure we can get to the end of successfully.



Again, no. I obviously wasn't clear enough about Trevor's presentation in the first post. Sorry. His idea was not at the bargain basement end. The Gwladys Street End, Main Stand and Park End seating would be roughly of the current standard. there would be improvements to concourses and extra corporate boxes/lounges at the Park End. The big improvement in standard/quality and hence average ticket prices would be in the new Bullens Road which would also take over from the Main Stand in housing the admin, player and press facilities, etc. He envisages most of the Bullens Road seating to be higher standard in terms of leg-room, facilities, etc than the other sides and hence contribute to increased revenue more than the other areas (aside from the new corporate boxes).

While the increase in capacity would be 8-15k, the increase in revenue would be out of proportion to this as the better facilities and fewer obstructed views would justify higher pricing.



That's fair enough. Particularly the point about competing with LFC's new super stadium. It does of course pre-suppose they can find the money to build it, but then the devil will always help his own.

I don't really have the expertise to judge whether moving or re-developing is better, so I have to go with the experts. The club have said in the past that redevelopment is a non-starter, but the only evidence they could come up with was from a company who would profit from the move to Kirkby. Independent experts have said it could be done, but may have their own angle in pitching for the business. As simple fans, we've just not had the transparent information needed to make a judgement.

Nice one mate, so in conclusion the Gwladys St end and Main Stand will be left alone with the Bullens and Park being the only ones being redevleoped albeit the Park End marginaly with much of the main development in the Bullens. An estimated capacity of 50 -57 k which may be possible according to trev for 75mill.