New Everton Stadium

[davek]

World Heritage Status will be lost regardless of if a stadium is built there or not.

This has been known to LCC since Peel bought the areas and the first Liverpool Waters proposals appeared.

Dresden lost theirs because of a bridge!! A single multi-use skyscraper would probably lose it for Liverpool so it's just inevitable.



If the plans go as they are proposed then it'll probably be seen as a world heritage site in a few hundred years once again any way. lol

It's true with the planned redevelopment before the addition of the stadium was causing consternation with UNESCO but the stadium scheme would completely make up their minds over rescinding WHS for the waterfront.

 

[Onwards Evertonians]

World heritage status is so important, we don't even have it displayed on street signs marking out the site or boasting on the main thoroughfares into the city. If you're not told it's a WHS you'd never know.

 

[davek]

I never stated that it wouldn't cause the loss of some money, bug I know that you are familiar with net gains and losses. We could for example, not build a stadium and keep WHS, to gain approx, no idea of the numbers, so say £20m pa, probably wrong, or, we could build a stadium, have the LCC make £7m pa off the loan, and get a further £50m pa from increased trade, business rent, investment. All leads to a net gain. We should be worrying about whats best for the city, not whats best for the WHS.

On your other point, the deal that Everton are doing with the city is very similar to how they funded the construction of the dock sytems. that never did us any good did it.......

In years to come, Everton could be the centre of a new WHS application, as one of the oldest professional football clubs in the world placed on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey, adding to the culture of t ecity and the shape of the skyline. Who knows. The only thing I can be sure of, is that its difficult to move forward at pace, when constantly your looking over your shoulder, a quick glance is fine.

I dont think the financial balances to be considered from losing/retaining WHS is the be all and end all of the considerations though. I wasn't coming at this from that direction I merely pointed out that even on that score there was losses as well as gains. My original point I took up with you was twofold: that the loss of WHS cant just be shrugged off as something that isn't a problem - it clearly is as we are all proud of the fact that the city's skyline at the port is special as it stands; and the reason we wanted a stadium down there right next to it was that it reflected a lot of glory onto us if we ever get one built, so the port's loss of status is also a loss for us.

I take the opposite viewpoint onboard too. I can see the other side of the equation in terms of progress.

I just dont buy into arguments that start out by saying " well, this might be lost but it's no big deal really". It is. And we should acknowledge that it is. If you dont, you lose credibility.

 

[PeregrineT]

Only Davek would turn from "The stadiums never going to be built you fools" to "Oh NO, we are going to have a stadium built on the waterfront, thats terrible, we are going to lose WHS!"

 

[Baldynut]

I never stated that it wouldn't cause the loss of some money, bug I know that you are familiar with net gains and losses. We could for example, not build a stadium and keep WHS, to gain approx, no idea of the numbers, so say £20m pa, probably wrong, or, we could build a stadium, have the LCC make £7m pa off the loan, and get a further £50m pa from increased trade, business rent, investment. All leads to a net gain. We should be worrying about whats best for the city, not whats best for the WHS.

On your other point, the deal that Everton are doing with the city is very similar to how they funded the construction of the dock sytems. that never did us any good did it.......

In years to come, Everton could be the centre of a new WHS application, as one of the oldest professional football clubs in the world placed on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey, adding to the culture of t ecity and the shape of the skyline. Who knows. The only thing I can be sure of, is that its difficult to move forward at pace, when constantly your looking over your shoulder, a quick glance is fine.

Wouldn't mind a view like this from the Wirral or a Ferry

 

[charlie atkins]

How much do unesco pay the council for being a WHS, I doubt anything, who cares , its an eyesore and can only get better without some historian telling us different

 

[Toffeelover]

Looks to me that they are just after the pub.

 

[Chimpy Glassman]

WHS is a meaningless anchor, stopping essential redevelopment progress in North Liverpool.

 

[peteblue]

What's that all about?

I’d say it’s a man taking a video of a pub......just a guess like......

 

[Toffeelover]

A new stadium at BMD will not detract from this classical panorama of our beloved city.

 

[Jacko93]

I dont think the financial balances to be considered from losing/retaining WHS is the be all and end all of the considerations though. I wasn't coming at this from that direction I merely pointed out that even on that score there was losses as well as gains. My original point I took up with you was twofold: that the loss of WHS cant just be shrugged off as something that isn't a problem - it clearly is as we are all proud of the fact that the city's skyline at the port is special as it stands; and the reason we wanted a stadium down there right next to it was that it reflected a lot of glory onto us if we ever get one built, so the port's loss of status is also a loss for us.

I take the opposite viewpoint onboard too. I can see the other side of the equation in terms of progress.

I just dont buy into arguments that start out by saying " well, this might be lost but it's no big deal really". It is. And we should acknowledge that it is. If you dont, you lose credibility.

I can see the value in the WHS, and if the regeneration of the North and Central docks wasn't happening, then great, do all we can in order to maintain it. However, with what is going on, I see it as a necessary evil that it will be lost. WHS is a big deal for the city, but for me, not having the regeneration would be a bigger deal, as it is with the WHS that we are in the position as a city that we currently are, yet by doing something, that unfortunately negatively affects it, we can positively effect the city more. With the cuts that are continuing, the city is haemorrhaging money and struggling to keep its services afloat, what good is the WHS to a city that is declining? Who's to say that in 10 years time they don't turn round and say, 'you haven't invested enough in your cultural centres, you were already at risk, we're taking your status off you'. I would rather have a thriving city that is looking after its population not on the WHS, than a city who's population are struggling, but on it.

The city is on the at risk register, it has been for years. For anybody that is arsed about the WHS enough to only want to visit cities/places that hold it, then you would assume they would know that fact. They would also be aware that the building of the Liv Waters was the biggest threat. Therefore they would be naive, or trying to stir the pot, if they were to suggest that Everton's new stadium was anything other than a small part of a bigger issue anyway.

I want Everton to be ambitious, to win things. I feel that this move is a necessary part of that. The fact that it helps the city makes it imperative that it not only happens for our success as a club, but for the liveleyhood of thousands of people across the City.

 

[davek]

I can see the value in the WHS, and if the regeneration of the North and Central docks wasn't happening, then great, do all we can in order to maintain it. However, with what is going on, I see it as a necessary evil that it will be lost. WHS is a big deal for the city, but for me, not having the regeneration would be a bigger deal, as it is with the WHS that we are in the position as a city that we currently are, yet by doing something, that unfortunately negatively affects it, we can positively effect the city more. With the cuts that are continuing, the city is haemorrhaging money and struggling to keep its services afloat, what good is the WHS to a city that is declining? Who's to say that in 10 years time they don't turn round and say, 'you haven't invested enough in your cultural centres, you were already at risk, we're taking your status off you'. I would rather have a thriving city that is looking after its population not on the WHS, than a city who's population are struggling, but on it.

The city is on the at risk register, it has been for years. For anybody that is arsed about the WHS enough to only want to visit cities/places that hold it, then you would assume they would know that fact. They would also be aware that the building of the Liv Waters was the biggest threat. Therefore they would be naive, or trying to stir the pot, if they were to suggest that Everton's new stadium was anything other than a small part of a bigger issue anyway.

I want Everton to be ambitious, to win things. I feel that this move is a necessary part of that. The fact that it helps the city makes it imperative that it not only happens for our success as a club, but for the liveleyhood of thousands of people across the City.

I agree with much of that. I'd take with a pinch of salt though the projections by Anderson and co on job creation and stimulus to the economy. These things are always exaggerated.

My biggest concern is that this stadium scheme will go way way beyond £500M and we'll be looking at the thick end of about £700M in the end, and that debt will not sit easily on a club that is commercially stunted and waits like a junky for the next round of tv payments. That concern should be to the fore when every major commitment to this project is made. I'm very wary of figures like Moshiri - and Anderson is a vainglorious man with a big gob and I wouldn't trust him the centimetre I could throw him. This is a 139 year old institution and its well being is paramount over and above the schemes of characters like those two.

 

[Zaschrona]

I really hope we go for a 60k+ stadium. The dream is to play a Champions League final in our home stadium.

 

[jonnyboy316]

I agree with much of that. I'd take with a pinch of salt though the projections by Anderson and co on job creation and stimulus to the economy. These things are always exaggerated.

My biggest concern is that this stadium scheme will go way way beyond £500M and we'll be looking at the thick end of about £700M in the end, and that debt will not sit easily on a club that is commercially stunted and waits like a junky for the next round of tv payments. That concern should be to the fore when every major commitment to this project is made. I'm very wary of figures like Moshiri - and Anderson is a vainglorious man with a big gob and I wouldn't trust him the centimetre I could throw him. This is a 139 year old institution and its well being is paramount over and above the schemes of characters like those two.

Understand your concern Dave a Coventry scenario would be a disaster. Under what set of circumstances would you consider a stadium move outside of the extremely unlikely scenario of us being taken over by a Sheik or Oligarch who bank rolls the whole thing?

 

[davek]

Understand your concern Dave a Coventry scenario would be a disaster. Under what set of circumstances would you consider a stadium move outside of the extremely unlikely scenario of us being taken over by a Sheik or Oligarch who bank rolls the whole thing?

I think we need to find a partner (public or private) to shoulder the costs. The KD stadium would have seen EFC put 50% in and the council and other public bodies like English Partnerships were to invest the rest: EFC would have gained the matchday revenue (minus rental) and a share with partners of non-football events. You can see from that just how much of the heavy lifting Moshiri is placing on the club for BMD.