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.

 

Park End annexe - 'not going to happen now'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Neiler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for maybe stating the obvious... but our only hope is if someone comes in and invests by paying off this loan in full. That we are able to do anything at all at goodison?
 
BlackToffee said:
OK smart arse, any cretin can criticise. What's your realistic solution to solve the problem?

I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

smart arse? cretin? ok , i didnt believe everything KEIOC said about DK, BUT, when i looked into it even i could see problems, if an untrained eye can see whats going to happen, why couldnt the clubs "experts"(korky and dan). and as for realistic solution, simple. while this board feels under no pressure, ie; has support of the fans. nothing will get done. this board has proved time and again, it will lie/misinform/just plain say nothing, whatever it takes . we have to let them know we are no longer satisfied with half arsed plans that fail at the first real hurdle. we want a board that has vision, that has a way of financing its plans and tha team, that is open with the supporters, and most of all, a board that is as hungry for success on the pitch as we are. the total lack of finance for players proves how poor they are. but then, its not my job to do the boards job, but i could still do better than they have.
 
sirblue57 said:
smart arse? cretin? ok , i didnt believe everything KEIOC said about DK, BUT, when i looked into it even i could see problems, if an untrained eye can see whats going to happen, why couldnt the clubs "experts"(korky and dan). and as for realistic solution, simple. while this board feels under no pressure, ie; has support of the fans. nothing will get done. this board has proved time and again, it will lie/misinform/just plain say nothing, whatever it takes . we have to let them know we are no longer satisfied with half arsed plans that fail at the first real hurdle. we want a board that has vision, that has a way of financing its plans and tha team, that is open with the supporters, and most of all, a board that is as hungry for success on the pitch as we are. the total lack of finance for players proves how poor they are. but then, its not my job to do the boards job, but i could still do better than they have.
Click to expand...

Sorry if my language has offended you. Thank you, thank you. You and Chang have provided more realistic options in your time on this issue than Davek with his self serving posts over the last few years. So, respect to you. On the DK and Park End building. You essentially say that they should have abandoned the idea when they came up against a problem. So it would seem that they are criticised for not abandoning DK in the face of problems, which I believe they were entitled to challenge, but are equally criticised in allegedly abandoning the Park End Complex when there was a problem. It seems that they can never win.

But as I've said before, you can't sell if there are no buyers, but in the face of a credible buyer (not just the first crook who turns up at the door bearing false promises) I will not be arguing that the board continues.
 
BlackToffee said:
psst BlackToffee is his own man, not a anti board gnome with no idea on how to replace the board.

so, you intelligent people, how do you get a new board then.

You can confer.
Click to expand...


everton-f.c.-garden-gnome-17750-p.jpg


Kenwrong out!!
 
BlackToffee said:
Sorry if my language has offended you. Thank you, thank you. You and Chang have provided more realistic options in your time on this issue than Davek with his self serving posts over the last few years. So, respect to you. On the DK and Park End building. You essentially say that they should have abandoned the idea when they came up against a problem. So it would seem that they are criticised for not abandoning DK in the face of problems, which I believe they were entitled to challenge, but are equally criticised in allegedly abandoning the Park End Complex when there was a problem. It seems that they can never win.

But as I've said before, you can't sell if there are no buyers, but in the face of a credible buyer (not just the first crook who turns up at the door bearing false promises) I will not be arguing that the board continues.
Click to expand...

the fact of the matter is, the board seem incapable of actually achieving any task the set out to do. the list of failures is growing fast. and as for being for sale, are we ? who has actually been employed to facilitate it? the mixed messages at the inquiry left a bad taste in the mouths of many evertonians, added to the loss of AGMs and the boards reluctance to speak openly to supporters. just selected ones. as much as i understand your reluctance to believe KEIOC, the boards track record is actually worse, leaving a lot of supporters wondering what exactly IS going on. and as for buyers, maybe they are not thick on the ground at the moment, but when you see how many LESSER clubs than everton have attracted interest, you have to wonder,again, WHY not us? this is my problem with BK, i just cannot trust him,or this board, to do the best for the club.
 

Neiler said:
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.
Click to expand...

I imagine that it comes down to ownership of the Walton Lane Development. ;) I have questioned it, it doesn't seem to add up to me. Why would two private businesses in the retail partner and catering partner pay a 7 figure sum for a building they would not own?

I would be very surprised if other clubs had never encountered a situation where their ground is secured against a loan but the club chose to redevelop the ground.
 
Last edited:
Neiler said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's nothing confusing about it. The Prudential want their money back (the principal left on the debt - £25.6M plus the interest payments they get on top - 7% pa of the borrowed £30M back in 2002). They dont particularly care how they get that money - from a club playing in a stadium of 40,000 people or in a new ground with more capacity. The facility isn't the issue - the season ticket and matchday ticket sales are.

Why does it look like they've put their foot down on the annexe? Because it adds zero level of improved security for their loan I'd imagine.
 
davek said:
There's nothing confusing about it. The Prudential want their money back (the principal left on the debt - £25.6M plus the interest payments they get on top - 7% pa of the borrowed £30M back in 2002). They dont particularly care how they get that money - from a club playing in a stadium of 40,000 people or in a new ground with more capacity. The facility isn't the issue - the season ticket and matchday ticket sales are.

Why does it look like they've put their foot down on the annexe? Because it adds zero level of improved security for their loan I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

And who is responsible for accruing the Prudential debt?
 

sirblue57 said:
the fact of the matter is, the board seem incapable of actually achieving any task the set out to do. the list of failures is growing fast. and as for being for sale, are we ? who has actually been employed to facilitate it? the mixed messages at the inquiry left a bad taste in the mouths of many evertonians, added to the loss of AGMs and the boards reluctance to speak openly to supporters. just selected ones. as much as i understand your reluctance to believe KEIOC, the boards track record is actually worse, leaving a lot of supporters wondering what exactly IS going on. and as for buyers, maybe they are not thick on the ground at the moment, but when you see how many LESSER clubs than everton have attracted interest, you have to wonder,again, WHY not us? this is my problem with BK, i just cannot trust him,or this board, to do the best for the club.
Click to expand...

OK, I understand your mistrust. I'm not trying to change your mind on that score. I just like to judge the board on facts and not from self serving groups. If they do well, I'll praise them, if they do not, I'll slate them. I'm not a pro board gnome, nor am I going to go all Davek and believe that the evil empire resides in L4.

The reality is that we don't need just any buyer, we need a credible buyer, or we'll go the way of Notts County and Portsmouth.

Some people would be happy with administration if it got rid of BK. I'm not one of them. I remember the joy of getting rid of Johnson. I suspect that any new board will face the same evil empire tag within two years of taking over.
 
davek said:
There's nothing confusing about it. The Prudential want their money back (the principal left on the debt - £25.6M plus the interest payments they get on top - 7% pa of the borrowed £30M back in 2002). They dont particularly care how they get that money - from a club playing in a stadium of 40,000 people or in a new ground with more capacity. The facility isn't the issue - the season ticket and matchday ticket sales are.

Why does it look like they've put their foot down on the annexe? Because it adds zero level of improved security for their loan I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

Woah horsey, why would BS/Pru have a legal right to make an objection to the annexe if the deal is secured against the gate and season tickets - which is currently what is the public domain. How does the annexe jepordise either part of that deal and how do they have a legal right to interfere, if they have a legal right to the free hold, footprint, land its news to me.

The rubbutal you give isnt relevent, why would BS/Pru be bothered once their loan is secured, surely increased revenue puts the club in a better position to pay back the terms. You made the point yourself in terms of S.T's and gates as security even at another site, the annexe doesnt influence that at all, infact isnt it supposed to increase capacity.

See what im getting at here, have a think.

Morpheus
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top