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

Dymak said:
The dilemma facing that community is exactly that though, they will eventually have to choose between a Goodison redevelopment or an Everton relocation. It's really quite obvious which option will benefit the area and which one will add further malaise to an already seriously impoverished neighborhood.

Jumping up and down like William Wallace in order to maintain substandard housing may seem noble on the face of things, but all it really does is stifle progress and maintain an impoverished and adverse status quo.

Preserving the status quo is actually a Conservative ideology, and anyone who really wants change will have to accept change taking place. Nobody was arsed about buying the houses behind the Park End prior to its redevelopment, and nobody should really be arsed about buying the houses behind the Bullens, not if you put a community's wellbeing above that of a few individuals, or a gang of buy to let landlords.
Click to expand...

Hi mate sorry for late reply, Not sure I agree on your first point about it being obvious which option would benefit the area best if the relocation is to be in WHP. A redeveloped GP and a new build in WHP would only be half mile apart so I can't see how one would benefit the area and the other add further malaise to the area.
Of cause a lot will depend on the plans put forward for each option, if the WHP option has a new stadium, new houses, shopping and new community facilities that benefit the whole community it may revitalize but to what extent I'm not sure, but if it's a stand alone stadium with a few shops and houses then I don't see what great benefit that would bring
Who said it was substandard housing that's a bold statement to make about some ones home, unless of cause you have some first hand knowledge of the condition of the housing if so then I apologise, they may not look good from the outside but that's all we see the outside.
As for the housing behind the park end if my memory serves me right we did buy the houses there but as far as I remember we didn't force people out those houses were bought them years before the old park end was knocked down and the new stand built. I've never liked CPO's I know they are a necessary evil but I always think how I would feel if I was forced out of my home against my will.
 
Nobby Nobbs said:
Hi mate sorry for late reply, Not sure I agree on your first point about it being obvious which option would benefit the area best if the relocation is to be in WHP. A redeveloped GP and a new build in WHP would only be half mile apart so I can't see how one would benefit the area and the other add further malaise to the area.
Of cause a lot will depend on the plans put forward for each option, if the WHP option has a new stadium, new houses, shopping and new community facilities that benefit the whole community it may revitalize but to what extent I'm not sure, but if it's a stand alone stadium with a few shops and houses then I don't see what great benefit that would bring
Who said it was substandard housing that's a bold statement to make about some ones home, unless of cause you have some first hand knowledge of the condition of the housing if so then I apologise, they may not look good from the outside but that's all we see the outside.
As for the housing behind the park end if my memory serves me right we did buy the houses there but as far as I remember we didn't force people out those houses were bought them years before the old park end was knocked down and the new stand built. I've never liked CPO's I know they are a necessary evil but I always think how I would feel if I was forced out of my home against my will.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that EFC did something very similar to what LFC did with its surrounding housing, through buying the houses at or beyond market rate. It is this type of action that I support, and not necessarily the CPO action. However I keep on hearing that LFC were a disgrace for doing so, and I don’t agree with that view point. The truth is that LFC offer the community far more than the individuals that were occupying the housing. Change needs to happen for progress to take place; if you want progress then you have to accept change.

If the big rich corporation needs to start paying double the market rate to secure the land it needs then that is fair enough, I have no problem with the owners of the houses using their position to maximise their own personal benefit. The club can afford it, so they need to cough up or shut up. What I cannot agree with, is the idea that these people can only ever live at a particular address in L4 or L5, and that their whole world will collapse if they are given an opportunity to move somewhere less deprived and with less limited opportunity.

If someone starts turning down offers of 100k for a 50k house, then I do feel a CPO is needed. Otherwise, you have a situation in which one or two individuals are impeding the progress of an entire community. If people think offering someone 100k for a 50k house is a big crime, then they need to start reading the news a bit more, as far, far worse takes place on a daily basis.

I concede that WHP is still in close proximity to County Road, but is it close enough for the businesses in that area? I don’t know if it is, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the businesses on County Road would oppose a move from Goodison to WHP, and they would be doing so because it will most likely have an adverse affect on their businesses.

I apologise for calling someone’s home substandard, especially given the fact that I have not seen their interior like you say. However there is a reason why those house are going for 25% of the national average, and there will eventually come a time when those houses need replacing, and I don’t think they are of such great significance that they need to be preserved forever more. Eventually, the change will have to take place.
 
Dymak said:
It is my understanding that EFC did something very similar to what LFC did with its surrounding housing, through buying the houses at or beyond market rate. It is this type of action that I support, and not necessarily the CPO action. However I keep on hearing that LFC were a disgrace for doing so, and I don’t agree with that view point. The truth is that LFC offer the community far more than the individuals that were occupying the housing. Change needs to happen for progress to take place; if you want progress then you have to accept change.

If the big rich corporation needs to start paying double the market rate to secure the land it needs then that is fair enough, I have no problem with the owners of the houses using their position to maximise their own personal benefit. The club can afford it, so they need to cough up or shut up. What I cannot agree with, is the idea that these people can only ever live at a particular address in L4 or L5, and that their whole world will collapse if they are given an opportunity to move somewhere less deprived and with less limited opportunity.

If someone starts turning down offers of 100k for a 50k house, then I do feel a CPO is needed. Otherwise, you have a situation in which one or two individuals are impeding the progress of an entire community. If people think offering someone 100k for a 50k house is a big crime, then they need to start reading the news a bit more, as far, far worse takes place on a daily basis.

I concede that WHP is still in close proximity to County Road, but is it close enough for the businesses in that area? I don’t know if it is, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the businesses on County Road would oppose a move from Goodison to WHP, and they would be doing so because it will most likely have an adverse affect on their businesses.

I apologise for calling someone’s home substandard, especially given the fact that I have not seen their interior like you say. However there is a reason why those house are going for 25% of the national average, and there will eventually come a time when those houses need replacing, and I don’t think they are of such great significance that they need to be preserved forever more. Eventually, the change will have to take place.
Click to expand...

To be honest mate I agree with the majority of what you say, anyone who turns down double what it's worth would need their bumps feeling but I'm not sure that's the case in this instance. I don't think it's a case of living in a particular maybe it's a case of they've lived there all their lives they have family and friends there, kids in school there, may work in the area and mum or dad minds the kids there's a myriad of reasons why someone wants to stay in a particular area that's why you see houses sold in are a lot of people think of as run down. I think your right with regards to the comparison between LFC and EFC with regards to buying the houses close to their grounds, but one big difference is that EFC bought a few houses ( not sure how many) were LFC bought up whole streets boarded them up and left the area to rot for years now that was a scandal.
 

efcfanwirral said:
And its our best one for facilities and views by a mile. You can actually get a drink a half time without missing 5 minutes either side...or is that small time to expect that sort of luxury?
Click to expand...
It's quite clearly the most 'luxurious' stand that we've got based on leg room, number of unobstructed views and customer facilities.

However as @Fresh Prince of Belle Val rightly argues, it's not a high quality stand compared to some other examples in and around the league.

It's not bad as some others may suggest, but once you've experienced The Emirates etc. you know how far we are actually behind.
 
Newspapers getting in fast...

http://www.theguardian.com/football...adium-liverpool-city-council?CMP=share_btn_tw

Everton plan for new stadium jeopardised by lack of council agreement
• Club still seek confirmation of council’s terms for Walton Hall Park project
• But Liverpool mayor claims Everton yet to submit proposals for ground

Everton’s latest plan to relocate from Goodison Park appears in jeopardy with the club and Liverpool City council, who have been asked to fund a new stadium on Walton Hall Park, blaming each other for a lack of progress over the scheme.

The club’s chief executive, Robert Elstone, told the club’s AGM on Monday a move to Walton Hall Park remained the board’s “key priority” but no agreement had been reached with the council on the land or funding. Everton want a council that has faced severe spending cuts since 2010-11 to help finance a stadium that forms part of wider regeneration plans for north Liverpool.

The club has set aside £2.5m to commence work on the stadium should its funding proposals – that Elstone claims will give the council an annual profit – gain approval.

He described Walton Hall Park as “a fantastic opportunity for this football club” but also “a hugely challenging funding project”. He warned the club, that announced a record turnover of £125.6m for 2014-15 thanks mainly to the Premier League broadcasting deal, could not deliver the stadium “in isolation” and was disappointed the mayor, Joe Anderson, had said the onus was on Everton.

“We need confirmation on the city council’s partnership terms. We need to know the terms for accessing the park and the level of investment they are prepared to put in,” said Elstone. “We need a partnership approach with the city council and in my opinion at the moment we don’t have that. It is not just an Everton stadium with a few nice things around it. It is a vision for the regeneration of north Liverpool with a stadium in it. At the moment I don’t think the council sees it that way.”

Anderson, however, claimed Everton had not submitted planning or financial proposals to the council almost 18 months after Walton Hall Park emerged as a possible site. In a tweet posted while Elstone was taking questions on the stadium from shareholders, Anderson said: “Re EFC, CEO comments at AGM that they are ready on stadium. I am looking forward to receiving their planning and financial proposals tomorrow.”

The Everton chairman, Bill Kenwright, was unable to attend the meeting due to continued ill health. New investment remains a priority for the chairman, according to his chief executive, although Walton Hall Park is dependent on resolving fundamental problems with the council rather than finding an investor. “We are not working on the new stadium on the premise that we are about to secure new investment or need new investment,” said Elstone. “We think it could work in a true partnership sense.”

The CEO did not completely dismiss the prospect of Goodison Park being redeveloped should Walton Hall Park – Everton’s third proposed new stadium site in recent times – fall through. But he reiterated the board’s view that a redevelopment of Goodison was not financially viable.

Elstone also detailed Everton’s borrowing streams at the AGM. The club’s net debt increased from £28.1m in 2013-14 to £31.3m in 2014-15, despite the record turnover and TV deal.

“We have three sources of lending,” he said. “We have a long-term loan with the Prudential that expires in 2026, an overdraft with Barclays that is not enough to manage the day-to-day cash flow of the football club and, to address that, we borrow from JG Funding (a private company) against the TV money. It is all fully disclosed in our accounts, is approved by the Premier League and paid back at the end of the year.”
 

kithnou said:
Newspapers getting in fast...

http://www.theguardian.com/football...adium-liverpool-city-council?CMP=share_btn_tw

Everton plan for new stadium jeopardised by lack of council agreement
• Club still seek confirmation of council’s terms for Walton Hall Park project
• But Liverpool mayor claims Everton yet to submit proposals for ground

Everton’s latest plan to relocate from Goodison Park appears in jeopardy with the club and Liverpool City council, who have been asked to fund a new stadium on Walton Hall Park, blaming each other for a lack of progress over the scheme.

The club’s chief executive, Robert Elstone, told the club’s AGM on Monday a move to Walton Hall Park remained the board’s “key priority” but no agreement had been reached with the council on the land or funding. Everton want a council that has faced severe spending cuts since 2010-11 to help finance a stadium that forms part of wider regeneration plans for north Liverpool.

The club has set aside £2.5m to commence work on the stadium should its funding proposals – that Elstone claims will give the council an annual profit – gain approval.

He described Walton Hall Park as “a fantastic opportunity for this football club” but also “a hugely challenging funding project”. He warned the club, that announced a record turnover of £125.6m for 2014-15 thanks mainly to the Premier League broadcasting deal, could not deliver the stadium “in isolation” and was disappointed the mayor, Joe Anderson, had said the onus was on Everton.

“We need confirmation on the city council’s partnership terms. We need to know the terms for accessing the park and the level of investment they are prepared to put in,” said Elstone. “We need a partnership approach with the city council and in my opinion at the moment we don’t have that. It is not just an Everton stadium with a few nice things around it. It is a vision for the regeneration of north Liverpool with a stadium in it. At the moment I don’t think the council sees it that way.”

Anderson, however, claimed Everton had not submitted planning or financial proposals to the council almost 18 months after Walton Hall Park emerged as a possible site. In a tweet posted while Elstone was taking questions on the stadium from shareholders, Anderson said: “Re EFC, CEO comments at AGM that they are ready on stadium. I am looking forward to receiving their planning and financial proposals tomorrow.”

The Everton chairman, Bill Kenwright, was unable to attend the meeting due to continued ill health. New investment remains a priority for the chairman, according to his chief executive, although Walton Hall Park is dependent on resolving fundamental problems with the council rather than finding an investor. “We are not working on the new stadium on the premise that we are about to secure new investment or need new investment,” said Elstone. “We think it could work in a true partnership sense.”

The CEO did not completely dismiss the prospect of Goodison Park being redeveloped should Walton Hall Park – Everton’s third proposed new stadium site in recent times – fall through. But he reiterated the board’s view that a redevelopment of Goodison was not financially viable.

Elstone also detailed Everton’s borrowing streams at the AGM. The club’s net debt increased from £28.1m in 2013-14 to £31.3m in 2014-15, despite the record turnover and TV deal.

“We have three sources of lending,” he said. “We have a long-term loan with the Prudential that expires in 2026, an overdraft with Barclays that is not enough to manage the day-to-day cash flow of the football club and, to address that, we borrow from JG Funding (a private company) against the TV money. It is all fully disclosed in our accounts, is approved by the Premier League and paid back at the end of the year.”
Click to expand...

The club has set aside £2.5m to commence work on the stadium should its funding proposals – that Elstone claims will give the council an annual profit – gain approval.

£2.5m...
 
kithnou said:
Newspapers getting in fast...

http://www.theguardian.com/football...adium-liverpool-city-council?CMP=share_btn_tw

Everton plan for new stadium jeopardised by lack of council agreement
• Club still seek confirmation of council’s terms for Walton Hall Park project
• But Liverpool mayor claims Everton yet to submit proposals for ground

Everton’s latest plan to relocate from Goodison Park appears in jeopardy with the club and Liverpool City council, who have been asked to fund a new stadium on Walton Hall Park, blaming each other for a lack of progress over the scheme.

The club’s chief executive, Robert Elstone, told the club’s AGM on Monday a move to Walton Hall Park remained the board’s “key priority” but no agreement had been reached with the council on the land or funding. Everton want a council that has faced severe spending cuts since 2010-11 to help finance a stadium that forms part of wider regeneration plans for north Liverpool.

The club has set aside £2.5m to commence work on the stadium should its funding proposals – that Elstone claims will give the council an annual profit – gain approval.

He described Walton Hall Park as “a fantastic opportunity for this football club” but also “a hugely challenging funding project”. He warned the club, that announced a record turnover of £125.6m for 2014-15 thanks mainly to the Premier League broadcasting deal, could not deliver the stadium “in isolation” and was disappointed the mayor, Joe Anderson, had said the onus was on Everton.

“We need confirmation on the city council’s partnership terms. We need to know the terms for accessing the park and the level of investment they are prepared to put in,” said Elstone. “We need a partnership approach with the city council and in my opinion at the moment we don’t have that. It is not just an Everton stadium with a few nice things around it. It is a vision for the regeneration of north Liverpool with a stadium in it. At the moment I don’t think the council sees it that way.”

Anderson, however, claimed Everton had not submitted planning or financial proposals to the council almost 18 months after Walton Hall Park emerged as a possible site. In a tweet posted while Elstone was taking questions on the stadium from shareholders, Anderson said: “Re EFC, CEO comments at AGM that they are ready on stadium. I am looking forward to receiving their planning and financial proposals tomorrow.”

The Everton chairman, Bill Kenwright, was unable to attend the meeting due to continued ill health. New investment remains a priority for the chairman, according to his chief executive, although Walton Hall Park is dependent on resolving fundamental problems with the council rather than finding an investor. “We are not working on the new stadium on the premise that we are about to secure new investment or need new investment,” said Elstone. “We think it could work in a true partnership sense.”

The CEO did not completely dismiss the prospect of Goodison Park being redeveloped should Walton Hall Park – Everton’s third proposed new stadium site in recent times – fall through. But he reiterated the board’s view that a redevelopment of Goodison was not financially viable.

Elstone also detailed Everton’s borrowing streams at the AGM. The club’s net debt increased from £28.1m in 2013-14 to £31.3m in 2014-15, despite the record turnover and TV deal.

“We have three sources of lending,” he said. “We have a long-term loan with the Prudential that expires in 2026, an overdraft with Barclays that is not enough to manage the day-to-day cash flow of the football club and, to address that, we borrow from JG Funding (a private company) against the TV money. It is all fully disclosed in our accounts, is approved by the Premier League and paid back at the end of the year.”
Click to expand...

You can see why Joe Anderson was so quick to respond, headlines like this were the narrative they wanted. The board aren't at fault because the council won't play ball.

Sky, BT Sport, The Daily Mail, The Guardian all picking up on the council line and using it as the headline.
 
Everton need council money to help build at WHP, so you'd think they'd be doing everything in their power to convince the council it was a good idea.

Rather like they've been doing everything in their power to find new ownership ...
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top