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

davek said:
Of course, one person forced out when they dont wish it is one person too many. But quantities can produce qualitative change. We know that from nature. Similarly with social-life. If you affect enough people you'll get a greater co-ordinated response that will force other people involved in the process to examine their roles. We didn't see that self examination with Liverpool fans when it was a massive issue affecting huge numbers of residents, themselves and their club.

There's no hypocrisy when saying that Everton FC were hellbent on turfing out care home residents and threatening livelihoods in Kirkby and yet Everton supporters were critical campaigners against that.

I know your position is to normalise this type of acquisition and development for the purposes of arguing the case for a Goodison expansion, but I really do think many more football fans these days are prepared to question their loyalty to clubs when others are affected by their actions. The dock stadium has sidelined that debate for us this time around.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to normalise anything, for any reason. The fact is almost 2000 houses were demolished near the Anfield ground in that period (more again if you want to expand the time window) ...... but for some reason we only wish to take issue with the 200-300 of them acquired and demolished by LFC (to facilitate expanding their ground). While at the same time completely forgetting about approx 100 houses EFC have demolished when expanding GP, not once mentioning that or the whole pathways scheme that tinned up far more properties and forced far more tenants out of that area than LFC? I'm all for ribbing our neighbours at every opportunity.... but we're talking amongst ourselves here.

As regards KEIOC....rest assured they were formed long before any knowledge of any care homes etc. Their objectives and priority was entirely against the club leaving the city boundaries, due to multiple concerns about: the effects on change of perception of the club by leaving the whole city to our rivals, and also to expose the lies about the claims of "most accessible stadium in the country" and being "effectively free" etc.

In the process, issues such a multiple revised transport plans, riding roughshod over planning for out-of-town retail developments, effects on the newly opened Liverpool One development, effects on local residents in both Kirkby and Walton and even water voles and Great crested newts were all thrown into the hat too. Numerous other aspects were utilised as and when they cropped up. However, the main issue was always the fundamentally flawed scheme itself.
 
Gardocki said:
Click to expand...


1636373951991.webp
 

Tom Hughes said:
I'm not trying to normalise anything, for any reason. The fact is almost 2000 houses were demolished near the Anfield ground in that period (more again if you want to expand the time window) ...... but for some reason we only wish to take issue with the 200-300 of them acquired and demolished by LFC (to facilitate expanding their ground). While at the same time completely forgetting about approx 100 houses EFC have demolished when expanding GP, not once mentioning that or the whole pathways scheme that tinned up far more properties and forced far more tenants out of that area than LFC? I'm all for ribbing our neighbours at every opportunity.... but we're talking amongst ourselves here.
Click to expand...

There's a danger in getting bogged down in a comparison of numbers here. The point I'm making is that - contra to the Everton experience around Goodison (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) - there wasn't significant resident dissent at the actions of the club that were being ignored by Everton fans (which may have to do with the piecemeal nature over a very long time of our stadium upgrades, I dont know). On the other hand, we have a clear case of a football club that launched a decade long campaign - in plain sight - to destabilise a district. Liverpool fans knew all about that and they had the opportunity to put their weight behind a substantial and co-ordinated campaign by residents to fightback.

Tom Hughes said:
As regards KEIOC....rest assured they were formed long before any knowledge of any care homes etc. Their objectives and priority was entirely against the club leaving the city boundaries, due to multiple concerns about: the effects on change of perception of the club by leaving the whole city to our rivals, and also to expose the lies about the claims of "most accessible stadium in the country" and being "effectively free" etc.

In the process, issues such a multiple revised transport plans, riding roughshod over planning for out-of-town retail developments, effects on the newly opened Liverpool One development, effects on local residents in both Kirkby and Walton and even water voles and Great crested newts were all thrown into the hat too. Numerous other aspects were utilised as and when they cropped up. However, the main issue was always the fundamentally flawed scheme itself.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how fans getting behind resident groups in Kirkby to save their community can be dismissed as a secondary matter. People in struggle often develop their consciousness and open up support to others in related struggles. So what that fan groups were primarily motivated to stop the stadium happening at Kirkby because they wanted the club to remain in the city boundaries. There was a lot of crossover between KEIOC and KRAG in terms of objective and personnel.

DK was a clear case when fans DID step up; the Anfield redevelopnment was a clear case of when fans DIDN'T step up.

It's not a matter of "ribbing", it's a matter of historical record.
 
Tom Hughes said:
I'm not trying to normalise anything, for any reason. The fact is almost 2000 houses were demolished near the Anfield ground in that period (more again if you want to expand the time window) ...... but for some reason we only wish to take issue with the 200-300 of them acquired and demolished by LFC (to facilitate expanding their ground). While at the same time completely forgetting about approx 100 houses EFC have demolished when expanding GP, not once mentioning that or the whole pathways scheme that tinned up far more properties and forced far more tenants out of that area than LFC? I'm all for ribbing our neighbours at every opportunity.... but we're talking amongst ourselves here.

As regards KEIOC....rest assured they were formed long before any knowledge of any care homes etc. Their objectives and priority was entirely against the club leaving the city boundaries, due to multiple concerns about: the effects on change of perception of the club by leaving the whole city to our rivals, and also to expose the lies about the claims of "most accessible stadium in the country" and being "effectively free" etc.

In the process, issues such a multiple revised transport plans, riding roughshod over planning for out-of-town retail developments, effects on the newly opened Liverpool One development, effects on local residents in both Kirkby and Walton and even water voles and Great crested newts were all thrown into the hat too. Numerous other aspects were utilised as and when they cropped up. However, the main issue was always the fundamentally flawed scheme itself.
Click to expand...
Attention seeking at its finest...bore off
 


Welcome

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

Register
Back
Top