Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

New Everton Stadium

The change is because the LCC can earn more money without increased risk.

But if this plan is superior why does it feel like a Plan B? Surely it would've been the Plan A if it had more advantages and no more risk.

More money, fine. Good reason. I'm not convinced there's less risk in actually lending the money, however.

I still think it's odd that the change has happened.

Weirdly, at face value, it points to one of two extremes - either the club is doing such a bad job getting Plan A to work they've asked for a council loan in desperation, or they're doing such a good job that the council have asked to take on more risk to get more reward from the scheme. So....I guess the question surely is, who initiated this change?
 
But if this plan is superior why does it feel like a Plan B? Surely it would've been the Plan A if it had more advantages and no more risk.

More money, fine. Good reason. I'm not convinced there's less risk in actually lending the money, however.

I still think it's odd that the change has happened.

Weirdly, at face value, it points to one of two extremes - either the club is doing such a bad job getting Plan A to work they've asked for a council loan in desperation, or they're doing such a good job that the council have asked to take on more risk to get more reward from the scheme. So....I guess the question surely is, who initiated this change?

Going off Joe's tweets, the Council initiated the change having decided the reward was worth it.
 
But if this plan is superior why does it feel like a Plan B? Surely it would've been the Plan A if it had more advantages and no more risk.

More money, fine. Good reason. I'm not convinced there's less risk in actually lending the money, however.

I still think it's odd that the change has happened.

Weirdly, at face value, it points to one of two extremes - either the club is doing such a bad job getting Plan A to work they've asked for a council loan in desperation, or they're doing such a good job that the council have asked to take on more risk to get more reward from the scheme. So....I guess the question surely is, who initiated this change?

Whether you have ownership of the loan or you are a guarantor the exact same risk applies.

You have a point between plan A and plan B though, if we were going to borrow using the council as a backer before and then pay 4 million, how is it a better deal if we now need to pay 7 million? Could the interest rates change that much when they are in theory both council accessed loans? Or perhaps the lender won't accept the us as the principle borrowers and it has to be in the councils name to get access to lower rates forcing the change in tack.
 

Why wasn't there all this fuss over the attempts to attract Amazon to Croxteth? Load of Corpy money spent, the course of the River Alt changed and for what? The tax dodging multi trillion dollar company went elsewhere.
 
Always going to get some heat this...just a case of answering all the wrong questions with all the right answers especially from those bitter Reds at pokey Analfield.

If I could borrow £10k, repay £11k but then loan it to somebody else for £15k, making me £4k, I would do it in a heartbeat. Joe would have taken advice that he was on a sure footing before going public with this. He knew what was coming his way so I cannot see a few bitters or ill-informed members of the public derailing the plan. He's used to that sort of flak. It's not just the income, its the whole North Docks acceleration programme at stake here - to the benefit of the whole city.
 
Whether you have ownership of the loan or you are a guarantor the exact same risk applies.

You have a point between plan A and plan B though, if we were going to borrow using the council as a backer before and then pay 4 million, how is it a better deal if we now need to pay 7 million? Could the interest rates change that much when they are in theory both council accessed loans? Or perhaps the lender won't accept the us as the principle borrowers and it has to be in the councils name to get access to lower rates forcing the change in tack.

Is that part not because it's gone from paying it off over 40 years as opposed to the 25 years it's now changed to?
 

The change is because the LCC can earn more money without increased risk.

Exactly this. @RobSpurs - as @The binman chronicles has mentioned, the risk is the same.

I think some either don't understand what their role as Guarantor was or are getting confused somehow.

"A guarantor is a person who guarantees to pay for someone else's debt if he or she should default on a loan obligation. A guarantor acts as a co-signer of sorts, in that they pledge their own assets or services if a situation arises in which the original debtor cannot perform their obligations."

The Council was always at 'risk' as Guarantor as they are now in the event that complete catastrophe hits Everton Football Club where we get relegated for the first time in 63+ years, the TV companies decide they no longer have interest in Football, and we have no players that are worth any money.
 
Man city do not seem to have suffered from having dodgy owners.

But as for your other point a new stadium is the key not just for us but for the north dock project as a whole.

Ah but if they had bought Everton instead of City, imagine the sheer anger on here at where the money had come from.
And if we'd been given a stadium, some GOT people would never go to any games, in protest at public money being spent.
Let's not even go into shirt sponsorships...

For those few, Football and Everton must be pure, divorced from the world. Don't ever know a time when that's happened before but plainly it's the only acceptable state.
 
Last edited:

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top