Park End annexe - 'not going to happen now'

[chicoazul]

I see a vision of Martin Jol in a pink tutu and a fairy godmothers wand.

Really? ACE.

mOYlEz OUT FFS.

 

[davek]

yeah they must have. must have ****ed up on kings dock. Probably should've won the league. I reckon they probably deserve having their house burnt down.

Probably must have like.

How about we wait until we hear the news....nah, that wont fit into the pro-whinge agenda. Honestly davek. Beyond attacking the board on this forum, what else is there to do?

I reckon the board are ****e. Maybe in one to twelve months there'll be another thing to crucify them for. But jumping the gun just shows how little objectivity you possess in these matters.

New stadium costs for Destination Kirkby from the club accounts 2008-2010: £1.4M + £1.3M + £1.5M. So just on DK it stands at £4M+. So yeah, with KD and this latest **** up thrown in it must be circa £6-7M.

Jump the gun my arse.

 

[neonleon]

New stadium costs for Destination Kirkby from the club accounts 2008-2010: £1.4M + £1.3M + £1.5M. So just on DK it stands at £4M+. So yeah, with KD and this latest **** up thrown in it must be circa £6-7M.

Jump the gun my arse.

Sorry, thought you were talking about this project.

Consider my last post withdrawn.

 

[Chang Elephant]

To show the type of organisation kEIOC are. Happy to engage in dirty tactics when it suits them, takes the moral high ground when it comes to the Everton board. Only the outcry stopped them doing it, not their sense of moral centre.

The Kirkby Residents Group were the video nasties, but carry on showing the type of organisation that KEIOC are irrespective, you're doing a fine job.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Seiously mate, all told (KD/DK/this latest abortion) they must have pissed the best part of £6-7M up against the wall on design and legal bills.

This lot are determined the club doesn't fall into "wrong hands" though!

It'd be funny if it wasn't so ****ing tragic.

Didn't they take one of our recent pre season tour organisers to court/court steps recently and lose? Only 400K though.

 

[BlackToffee]

The Kirkby Residents Group were the video nasties, but carry on showing the type of organisation that KEIOC are irrespective, you're doing a fine job.

Oh, yes, the KEIOC chair in his "personal capacity". If BK had done the same in his "personal capacity" you've have blamed the whole board, so why should I make this neat separation of political expediency. You believe because you want to believe, I check because I like to make up my own mind and not follow self serving posters like Davek.

Perhaps I should start calling Moyes a Ginger Prick?

Anyway, I once again pose the unanswered question, what is your solution to the current board situation?

 

[Chang Elephant]

Anyway, I once again pose the unanswered question, what is your solution to the current board situation?

That they reduce their asking price to a realistic market value, take a reasonable profit and **** off back to theatreland and White Hart Lane.

 

[Neiler]

Lets be honest here, many would have lauded the ropey takeovers we have seen at most clubs. Just as people lauded the Kirkby decison, then stopped looked around and realised we are stagnating - to be honest ive little symphathy for anyone who applauded that decison and is now no stranger to a moan, what did you think would happen.

Watch words here are "we dont know what the hell we want, but we want it now".

To be honest true or not, im not to fussed, is/was a short sighted scheme as far as i looked into it, anyting that limits space in the existing footprint, or saddles us to the site for anything over five years i think is a bad thing.

 

[neonleon]

It's a band aid solution, that seems reasonably creative in the short term. To say it limits space on the existing footprint - well, the way they sold it to the fans it wouldn't cost anything and would generate funds by freeing up space within the ground. If that is true then what is the problem? (not withstanding current delays). Limiting space on the current footprint is meaningless when its hemmed in on the other three sides.

Maybe ten years down the line we can tear it down to rebuild on the goodison site. After we've bought 150 terrace houses, a school, a garage and part of a road.

 

[kenada_blue]

Lets be honest here, many would have lauded the ropey takeovers we have seen at most clubs. Just as people lauded the Kirkby decison, then stopped looked around and realised we are stagnating - to be honest ive little symphathy for anyone who applauded that decison, what did you think would happen.

Watch words here are "we dont know what the hell we want, but we want but we want it now".

To be honest true or not, im not to fussed, is/was a short sighted scheme as far as i looked into it, anyting that limits space in the existing footprint, or saddles us to the site for anything over five years i think is a bad thing.

Wasnt that DK too? Unable to expand, lights out by 11 for noise pollution, unable to get there etc...

I was pro DK. But the more the **** went on and how it dragged for an age, the worse it got and the more you thought they were in for a quick cheap fix as it wasnt planned through properly.

This is exactly the same.

 

[Neiler]

It's a band aid solution, that seems reasonably creative in the short term. To say it limits space on the existing footprint - well, the way they sold it to the fans it wouldn't cost anything and would generate funds by freeing up space within the ground. If that is true then what is the problem? (not withstanding current delays). Limiting space on the current footprint is meaningless when its hemmed in on the other three sides.

Maybe ten years down the line we can tear it down to rebuild on the goodison site. After we've bought 150 terrace houses, a school, a garage and part of a road.

Seems to me the easiest option to increase capacity or redevelop a stand is the park end. Its also the only side of the ground thats not landlocked with a bit of creativity/funds i wouldnt write a redevelopment of the parkend as an option as part of the stadium.

I was never impressed with the level of detail provided in this deal, the "cost neutral" element worried me, there was no way Sodexo or Kitbag were throwing 10 million into this unless they would be making a markup signifcanlty higher then their investment. Given there time framed contracts, i had concern about the detail/ownership and inplications of this deal going on into the future.

 

[Neiler]

Wasnt that DK too? Unable to expand, lights out by 11 for noise pollution, unable to get there etc...

I was pro DK. But the more the **** went on and how it dragged for an age, the worse it got and the more you thought they were in for a quick cheap fix as it wasnt planned through properly.

This is exactly the same.

To be honest mate, i think the strategy was getting the foot in the door and over the line in terms of planning, as time passed i could see those issues changeing also.

I also thought the financial estimates were on the conservative side in terms of extra revenue it would have generated.

 

[BlackToffee]

That they reduce their asking price to a realistic market value, take a reasonable profit and **** off back to theatreland and White Hart Lane.

Excuse me sir, what is the asking price? What would be a "realistic market value".

Other than that, at least a sensible suggestion.

if there was a legitimate buyer out there, you'd have me on your side.

 

[born2b blue]

You''ll be waiting a long time before this is finally acknowledged officialy as dead in the water. The club kicked this into the long grass for 12 months back in March.

Supprised no one's sussed out what this was all about before now, as you say it was kicked into the long grass for 12 months back in March.
And the reason for that is it was never intended to happen, but to take attention away from the lack of tranfers in January.

 

[Neiler]

Supprised no one's sussed out what this was all about before now, as you say it was kicked into the long grass for 12 months back in March.
And the reason for that is it was never intended to happen, but to take attention away from the lack of tranfers in January.

If true there is an awfull lot more people are missing here then what you mention. My understanding is that Everton took out a loan secured against the future revenues derived from gate receipts, specifically the sale of season tickets and match day tickets at Goodison Park. The terms of this loan are £30M at a fixed interest rate of 7.79% paid back over a 25-year period.

Heres the confuseing part, if KEIOC claim that in some way the deal inhibits Everton from developing the ground, this would be a new development of the deal many would not be aware of and secondly and more worringly would mean no further redevelopment of Goodison or the footprint over the course of the deal. Which has 16 years left to run. Additionly if a new site was found would this mean we would even be able to sell Goodison for redevelopment.

Thats is why im waiting for a club statement, either this is massively bogey, or this is as serious a gaff as i can ever remeber which basivly ties us to Goodison in its existing form for the next 12 years, given the info KEIOC etc are giving out.

Seems odd that the club hadnt been aware of this given when they have gone through the KD and DK proposals, which makes me question or at least wait for offical word.