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

blulouie said:
Interesting reading the email from Colin Chong and the club regarding Premium seating and pricing.
'Loge' ( thats a new one to me ) Best views with cinema style seating and personnal tv monitors similarly done in the USA . Would be a 1st for the Premier League.
Access to gastro and traditional pubs , sounds like they are going for it in the Premium & Corporate sector.
Further survey to follow regarding our views on pricing later this week.


Edit
Loge is Private box btw.
Click to expand...
Yes, will be interesting to see this next email. I noticed they said the ticket pricing isn’t final and they just want opinion. They’re targeting the whole match day experience, sounds promising
 
The Legend of Southall said:
So English Heritage are fully supportive of building a road and a tunnel through a World Heritage Site at Stonehenge, but completely against us building a stadium on some disused dock next to a sewage plant?

Where was that poster who got the names of those at the top of English Heritage? Because I may of been joking before, but I think we really do need to do some digging and find out if any of them are Liverpool fans.

Something doesn't smell right here, and it's not the sewage plant.
Click to expand...
Our brown envelopes obviously weren't fat enough.
 
blulouie said:
Interesting reading the email from Colin Chong and the club regarding Premium seating and pricing.
'Loge' ( thats a new one to me ) Best views with cinema style seating and personnal tv monitors similarly done in the USA . Would be a 1st for the Premier League.
Access to gastro and traditional pubs , sounds like they are going for it in the Premium & Corporate sector.
Further survey to follow regarding our views on pricing later this week.


Edit
Loge is Private box btw.
Click to expand...

Loge is just premium seating within a distinct area. It’s not a private box as we know them.....
 

blulouie said:
Interesting reading the email from Colin Chong and the club regarding Premium seating and pricing.
'Loge' ( thats a new one to me ) Best views with cinema style seating and personnal tv monitors similarly done in the USA . Would be a 1st for the Premier League.
Access to gastro and traditional pubs , sounds like they are going for it in the Premium & Corporate sector.
Further survey to follow regarding our views on pricing later this week.


Edit
Loge is Private box btw.
Click to expand...
Can’t wait to see what we actually end up with.
Probably some camping chairs from Go outdoors with a chinese tablet from wish sellotaped to it.

We never make the most of our opportunities.
 
peteblue said:
I checked a few of these out a while back. One of the guys actually has football related work if I remember (companies house)...but I’m sure you lot will sniff it out....
Click to expand...

B39483DB-B058-4740-BA3E-5486D9E3FEEC.webp
 

Jacko93 said:
The tunnel puts stonehenge at less risk. The current situation with it is that is has become a major artery, with heavy traffic constantly driving by. The pollution is affecting the henge, the vibration is also affecting the henge. They support the tunnel cause it will go a long way to protecting a heritage asset.

They are opposing BMD cause they have to. There is no conspiracy. We're building a football stadium on a World Heritage Site, it was never going to be easy. They've not just popped up out of the blue, they've been engaged in this since the beginning.

I stated a while back that I'd be surprised if the stadium wasn't called in, and this was why. While I now see it as less likely it is called in, as quite a bit has changed globally.... I'd still not be particularly surprised. Even despite all that, it'll get built. Of that I'm (close to) certain (99.9%)
Click to expand...
Oh I get all that. What i don't get is English Heritage's logic.

They said that they would prefer the dock to become housing. Even though it's next to a sewage plant, located in a rundown industrial area. Where demand for housing is non existent.

Surely the brainiacs who came up with that idea would be pushing for the road to completely bypass the entire area? ( I know how impractical that would be, I'm comparing it to the impracticality of building houses on the dock)

Also, they seem happy that nearly 96% of artifacts dug up by this road and tunnel will be destroyed. But a dock wall might get damaged, and suddenly that project needs calling in and cancelling?

I just can't see how they have connected those dots. Especially as Everton appear to be now going to more lengths to preserve the dock wall, than those constructors are, with the historic artifacts they dig up, at Stonehenge.

Hopefully the Liverpool Council rule this stadium to be more beneficial than any potential harm caused to the dock wall. Then English Heritage's objections disappear, and all this has been a storm in a tea cup.

But something isn't adding up for me.
 
The Legend of Southall said:
Oh I get all that. What i don't get is English Heritage's logic.

They said that they would prefer the dock to become housing. Even though it's next to a sewage plant, located in a rundown industrial area. Where demand for housing is non existent.

Surely the brainiacs who came up with that idea would be pushing for the road to completely bypass the entire area? ( I know how impractical that would be, I'm comparing it to the impracticality of building houses on the dock)

Also, they seem happy that nearly 96% of artifacts dug up by this road and tunnel will be destroyed. But a dock wall might get damaged, and suddenly that project needs calling in and cancelling?

I just can't see how they have connected those dots. Especially as Everton appear to be now going to more lengths to preserve the dock wall, than those constructors are, with the historic artifacts they dig up, at Stonehenge.

Hopefully the Liverpool Council rule this stadium to be more beneficial than any potential harm caused to the dock wall. Then English Heritage's objections disappear, and all this has been a storm in a tea cup.

But something isn't adding up for me.
Click to expand...

Heritage England understand that something will be done with the site. There was an agreement reached back in 2012 wit the award of eth outline planning permission that was granted for Liverpool Waters. That included a residential are that maintained the history of the dock, with water in it, and that water actually being a feature/focal point. What has happened now though is that it has changed from what was agreed. A large part of their argument isn't DO NOT BUILD EVERTONS GROUND HERE, it is, "this isn't what was agreed, and given the choice between the two, we will only support the one we agreed to.

With RE Stonehenge, though I know its off topic, its not like they are going in to destroy artefacts... some fella said potentially 500,000 artefacts will be lost... There is no way of knowing how many it will be, but you only have to get so deep and there'll be nothing there anyway, as it will be 'virgin ground'. they will be doing a lot of work at the openings of the tunnel, but I doubt they will need to worry too much after that. The level of testing, laser scanning and traditional surveys that will take place for the tunnel to be built will probably make those areas of the site one of the most data rich available.

As it happens, I would rather we just took people off the roads rather than make them bigger to accommodate, but that's not likely....
 
Jacko93 said:
Heritage England understand that something will be done with the site. There was an agreement reached back in 2012 wit the award of eth outline planning permission that was granted for Liverpool Waters. That included a residential are that maintained the history of the dock, with water in it, and that water actually being a feature/focal point. What has happened now though is that it has changed from what was agreed. A large part of their argument isn't DO NOT BUILD EVERTONS GROUND HERE, it is, "this isn't what was agreed, and given the choice between the two, we will only support the one we agreed to.

With RE Stonehenge, though I know its off topic, its not like they are going in to destroy artefacts... some fella said potentially 500,000 artefacts will be lost... There is no way of knowing how many it will be, but you only have to get so deep and there'll be nothing there anyway, as it will be 'virgin ground'. they will be doing a lot of work at the openings of the tunnel, but I doubt they will need to worry too much after that. The level of testing, laser scanning and traditional surveys that will take place for the tunnel to be built will probably make those areas of the site one of the most data rich available.

As it happens, I would rather we just took people off the roads rather than make them bigger to accommodate, but that's not likely....
Click to expand...
Your first paragraph may indeed be what I'm missing from this. It would make English Heritage's stanch more understandable.

In regards to your last paragraph, I entirely agree. What I've never understood is why efforts haven't been made to make commuting by bus and train more easier and cheaper then driving.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top