Sandhills station

1744284356526.webp


Whats the term again? Rats fleeing a sinking ship.

Fair play to Whitney, distancing himself from this impending mess.
 

No supposition or muddied waters from me whatsoever. The Club's transport plan is in black and white and they have been questioned on it many times over several years. Has it been deviated from, and/or has the council failed to deliver on anything clearly outlined in it? As far as I can see, it hasn't!

"Resounding success" is the stated response for the whole test event. That infers no real reservations, including the only reference to transport, which is one of continued work through the transport working group, which the club itself chairs.... nothing negative mentioned, unless I've missed it elsewhere.
You can keep peddling this lie if you want but...

This was a hugely important step in our transition to Everton Stadium, and we are delighted with how the stadium and our protocols handled the increase in capacity. Following the first test event we received a lot of positive feedback on the matchday experience elements and the food offer, while we also took on board some learnings from an operational perspective."

...so, from a stadium operational sense it was declared a success....then came the comment on the transport situation:

"We will continue to engage with local authorities, city stakeholders and fan groups about the long-term travel plan, through the Transport Working Group.”

Not declared a success.

I mean, I dont know how clearer that has to be for you to get it.
 
View attachment 303135

Whats the term again? Rats fleeing a sinking ship.

Fair play to Whitney, distancing himself from this impending mess.

So that presumably means that he was Rotheram's transport adviser (if he's taking up a transport role in HM Government). He's probably seen how any ideas he had to improve the stadium situation were ignored by the clueless mop topped biff from Kirkby and got GTF out.

🤔
 
You can keep peddling this lie if you want but...

This was a hugely important step in our transition to Everton Stadium, and we are delighted with how the stadium and our protocols handled the increase in capacity. Following the first test event we received a lot of positive feedback on the matchday experience elements and the food offer, while we also took on board some learnings from an operational perspective."

...so, from a stadium operational sense it was declared a success....then came the comment on the transport situation:

"We will continue to engage with local authorities, city stakeholders and fan groups about the long-term travel plan, through the Transport Working Group.”

Not declared a success.

I mean, I dont know how clearer that has to be for you to get it.

No lies whatsover.

"Resounding success"....are the words used, and no negative transport issues mentioned in the same report in which the transport working group is actually referenced.

I'm not sure how much clearer that has to be for you to get it. This is the club's transport plan being implemented! I keep asking, but you still haven't shown where there has been any failure by the council to deliver their part of that plan, nor indeed any dissenting noises from the club. Quite the opposite in fact!
 
No lies whatsover.

"Resounding success"....are the words used, and no negative transport issues mentioned in the same report in which the transport working group is actually referenced.

I'm not sure how much clearer that has to be for you to get it. This is the club's transport plan being implemented! I keep asking, but you still haven't shown where there has been any failure by the council to deliver their part of that plan, nor indeed any dissenting noises from the club. Quite the opposite in fact!

I've handed you the only words Chong stated about the second test event and in it there is no mention of him viewing the transportation of supporters to and from the stadium as "a success"...none, zip, zilch, zero...yet you still keep putting those words into his mouth.

It's 'almost' like you're desperate to implicate the club you support in local state failure.

Why dont you finally stop fighting this stadium?

Get behind the club and stop aiding and abetting forces who are dragging their feet on making it a success.
 

View attachment 303135

Whats the term again? Rats fleeing a sinking ship.

Fair play to Whitney, distancing himself from this impending mess.

Anyone want to do his comms for him?

 
It isn't a "given" that local authorities have to provide infrastructure.... as has been shown at multiple other stadium developments. Those responsibilities are agreed in the planning negotiation stage..... so we can shout for evermore about what we think should be there, but if the club has failed in that planning negotiation process, then they are at least complicit or equally culpable. The transport plan was published over 5 yrs ago!
I know it isn't a given, however the Local Authority does have the overall responsibility for transportation in the region, including infrastructure.

You can infer from Rotherham's comments that the authority (or he) have looked at the stadium's proposed completion with scepticism.

From the outset, the planning application, with the transportation plan, focused on the use of existing infra-structure, with little scope for development.

They bet on walking, cycling, current bus routes (not many close!) and Sandhills Station (with crowd control enforced) even though they knew the limitations.

Could the club afford to contribute to a new, closer station? Not a chance, when you consider that St James/Baltic will cost circa £180m-£215m!

So with the council not considering a new station as a viable option, the club could either go with BMD as above, or walk away.
 
I've handed you the only words Chong stated about the second test event and in it there is no mention of him viewing the transportation of supporters to and from the stadium as "a success"...none, zip, zilch, zero...yet you still keep putting those words into his mouth.

It's 'almost' like you're desperate to implicate the club you support in local state failure.

Why dont you finally stop fighting this stadium?

Get behind the club and stop aiding and abetting forces who are dragging their feet on making it a success.

There are also no references whatsover about concerns over transport, a subject actually mentioned in the same article, and obviously a major part of the whole test event.... zero, zilch, nada...... There were also none in the previous 5 years, when THEIR transport plan has been discussed at several meetings. Now the only written words are that the test event was a "Resounding success"..... not just an ordinary success. No dissent, nor accusing comments from the club about dragging of feet. Why would there be? Apparently, the plan is almost fully implemented as per the planning docs, and far as they are all concerned?

Get behind the club? I've only missed a couple all season. No-one is fighting the stadium....... I'm over £6k invested already (and possibly far more than that very soon), so no need for false accusations about me too!

If there has been a dereliction of responsibility as you appear to be repeatedly claiming, then the club will be able to take legal action.
 
I know it isn't a given, however the Local Authority does have the overall responsibility for transportation in the region, including infrastructure.

You can infer from Rotherham's comments that the authority (or he) have looked at the stadium's proposed completion with scepticism.

From the outset, the planning application, with the transportation plan, focused on the use of existing infra-structure, with little scope for development.

They bet on walking, cycling, current bus routes (not many close!) and Sandhills Station (with crowd control enforced) even though they knew the limitations.

Could the club afford to contribute to a new, closer station? Not a chance, when you consider that St James/Baltic will cost circa £180m-£215m!

So with the council not considering a new station as a viable option, the club could either go with BMD as above, or walk away.
£100 Million for Baltic station isn't it? and thats including public realm & highways improvements and associated land acquisitions
 

There are also no references whatsover about concerns over transport, a subject actually mentioned in the same article, and obviously a major part of the whole test event.... zero, zilch, nada...... There were also none in the previous 5 years, when THEIR transport plan has been discussed at several meetings. Now the only written words are that the test event was a "Resounding success"..... not just an ordinary success. No dissent, nor accusing comments from the club about dragging of feet. Why would there be? Apparently, the plan is almost fully implemented as per the planning docs, and far as they are all concerned?

Get behind the club? I've only missed a couple all season. No-one is fighting the stadium....... I'm over £6k invested already (and possibly far more than that very soon), so no need for false accusations about me too!

If there has been a dereliction of responsibility as you appear to be repeatedly claiming, then the club will be able to take legal action.


There's an old saying: never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

The club have quietly let that bozo Rotheram ensnare himself in his own words. They know they dont need to go beyond the straight bat approach they've played on the transportation problems. That's because they know their supporters will (correctly) make the connection between the balls up and local state rather than the private company that invested £750M into building a stadium that regenerates north Liverpool.
 
So that presumably means that he was Rotheram's transport adviser (if he's taking up a transport role in HM Government). He's probably seen how any ideas he had to improve the stadium situation were ignored by the clueless mop topped biff from Kirkby and got GTF out.

🤔

Ive worked with the Transport team in Govt. Not everybody arrives there from a transport background. Some do, many dont. A large portion of them are economists, so I wouldn't make that presumption personally.
 
It isn't a "given" that local authorities have to provide infrastructure.... as has been shown at multiple other stadium developments. Those responsibilities are agreed in the planning negotiation stage..... so we can shout for evermore about what we think should be there, but if the club has failed in that planning negotiation process, then they are at least complicit or equally culpable. The transport plan was published over 5 yrs ago!

I'll tell you what is a given: that if the transportation issues this stadium faces - and which were fully known prior to the application being granted - were so unworkable (which they are) the responsibility lays FULLY with the local authority to knock that application back. So if it handed it the go ahead that's down to them.

That holds primacy over all arguments about 'agreements over transport plans' and 'who chairs what meeting'. That's strangely a point you never concede. I wonder why? 🤔
 

Welcome

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

Shop

Back
Top