Runub
Player Valuation: £60m
Now then.....who will be the first to crack and post a fish related funny
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.
anton66
Player Valuation: £50m
Cast?
Mrtallywacker
GOT spiritual advisor
Wonder how long it took United Utilities to obtain their license from MMO when they infilled the Dock next door?
ForeverEverton
Player Valuation: £50m
I thought this would have been more of a formality, something is clearly wrong here. We should be having spades in the...... water?
MickA
Player Valuation: £10m
It really depends how critical it is. There's no point pushing for it if we're not in a position to act upon it. What if the team that will remove the fish aren't available until September for example? You crack on and prioritise the things you are in a position to progress.
Shevin Keedy
Player Valuation: £35m
This is the Everton forum, it is no plaice for puns.Now then.....who will be the first to crack and post a fish related funny
The scope of the application is far wider than removing the fish. I'll go online later for a screenshot.
Loads of stuff a fella with a wheelbarrow can crack on with.
Tom has been saying it for about a dozen years or more that I know of.
For a number of reasons, there has been no 'Political Will' this century to redevelop on site.
BMD, is Moshiri's ticket to a big profit...the plus side for us is we get a new stadium.
If he could make it by redeveloping Goodison, he probably would, but I'm not sure that's possible.
PaddyJames
Player Valuation: £25m
On yer pike lad
Magus
Player Valuation: £8m
That's me school'd.
Tom Hughes
Player Valuation: £10m
That's the key issue. Packaging the club for a future sale or just building a healthy property portfolio on the waterfront might be the primary motives of our owners and if so perhaps pre-empts any notion/desire of pursuing the redevelopment option without the profitable trimmings.... which is probably why to date, we haven't seen a single independent redevelopment design study commissioned/published by the club. Some of that might also be legacy of the previous set up who were also adamant that staying was a non-starter as they basically always wanted someone else to foot the bill by way of an enabling scheme.
Yes, the owners and fan's objectives and motives can coincide and be mutually beneficial whereby we get a new stadium in the process, but that's not a given and viability is entirely dependent on how the sums add up. Liverpool's previous custodians were insistent for years that redevelopment of Anfield was simply not physically or financially viable. They wanted shiny new for maximum impact and profit. There was as you describe, no "political will" to even entertain the prospect of redeveloping the existing stadium. However, within weeks of new ownership that stance was completely reversed, as a more pragmatic "Fenway" approach was adopted, whereby it was realised that a far smaller outlay could achieve the same capacity objectives, while simultaneously cashing in on tradition by preserving or enhacing what already existed. The supposedly unfeasible/unviable mysteriously became the reality! A reality that pays for itself very quickly.
GP's redevelopment would be less problematic and less expensive for several reasons. It's status as the world's first purpose-built football stadium and/or the Archibald Leitch connections perhaps also adding greater historic structural impetus and value than anything at Anfield..... where incidentally Leitch's 1906 mainstand still accounts for roughly one third of that side's total capacity. Thus disproving the idea that even the oldest structures can't be modernised/recycled effectively.
My stance has always been about wanting to balance all the options by having all the information, ultimately to get the best stadium solution for the club/fans.... which is why I responded to those still peddling outdated lies from the Elstone/Kirkby era. I am not at all averse to moving and am as excited as most about the proposals. I voted to go to Kings dock, which I considered the best option on various levels. I was very wary of the hardsell (and both poor location and design) at Kirkby, and slightly concerned by some of the unresolved cost/transport/design issues with BMD, which as ever I feel always has to be measured against the benchmark of redevelopment, which is why the absence of redevelopment design studies has always concerned me. After all, it is too late to ask in the future when it's gone..... especially if we are hamstrung by the costs of BMD.
