davek
Player Valuation: £150m
His arrogance is only matched by his incompetency.
It's probably the first time he's been scrutinised in public office and he looks well out of his depth.
It's probably the first time he's been scrutinised in public office and he looks well out of his depth.
windymiller
Player Valuation: £60m
100%. I don't understand what's difficult in simply running a couple of dozen double deckers down Great Howard Street to Strand Street by James Street station and back again, over and over. Make the left hand lane a bus lane, on match days only, 2 hours before kick off and for two hours after kick off. Job done. It's not a high tech solution but, unless someone can correct me, it seems entirely feasible, with very little up front cost.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Spot on that. Fantastic rant.
James Patrick
Player Valuation: £8m
Unfortunately a 7.5 minute frequency service to Aintree comes at expense of services between Kirkby and Town.
Jacko93
Player Valuation: £35m
Could it be that Rotherams inaction could actually benefit us as a club? If we can build on Nelson dock before they improve travel we have an opportunity to build something to keep people spending. Rotherham hasn't just failed us as fans, hes failing the whole city economy. The quicker you get people into the city the more ready they are to spend, businesses will know that and I doubt they will be overly enamoured at his performance. However, maybe the club aren't saying anything because in the long run, it may suit them.
Rita_Poon
Player Valuation: £90m
Tom Hughes
Player Valuation: £15m
Without a successful Commonwealth games bid, there was probably only ever going to be minimal public infrastructure investment for this project. Without that, It was always going to be difficult to attract major investment for a once a fortnight sports venue from local or national government, unless you could somehow mobilise massive local and national political support at that time (Let's face it, much of this was happening when Joe was going cap in hand to secure a special-funding vehicle for the project as a whole, so who knows where infrastructure fell in those priorities at the time). This applies to any new stadium project, hence the reason why Spurs and Arsenal had to fund much of theirs on their own. Plus remember, Spurs stayed on their existing site and Arsenal only moved a few hundred metres, so established infrastructure (and match day travel routines) were already in place and very much known quantities.
The result was the vacuous, box-ticking transport strategy that accompanied the planning application, prompting far more questions than it answered. It pretty much openly admitted the poor public transport provision on site.... while simultaneously demanding that far more people would have to leave their cars at home than do at present, at a smaller capacity stadium. The only "get out of jail card" has always been the walking distance to town.... the public transport nirvana that handles multiples of the stadium's capacity every Saturday and every rush hr. Tbh, this argument has only been reinforced many times on these pages, with people quoting their best speed-walking times from various key locations, and there was very little clamour before the first test event exposed the obvious issues, more so the second one. Neither events anywhere near a capacity stress test.
Tellingly, both Rotheram and the club have presented a united front, declaring the 2nd test event "a great success". Obviously, they are desperate to get the safety certification across the line. They're probably hoping for funding from the likes of the Euros/Ashes to provide more infrastructure and the arrival of the Gliders in 2028 to act as a better city-centre-connecting people-mover. With the longer term intention being that beyond that period, the whole Liverpool Waters/Ten Streets and other associated developments will prompt much more permanent infrastructure solutions nearby. In the meantime there are lots of glaringly obvious lessons to be learnt and acted upon.... but I do think that there may be some relatively easy quick-fix solutions for in the shorter term too.
The result was the vacuous, box-ticking transport strategy that accompanied the planning application, prompting far more questions than it answered. It pretty much openly admitted the poor public transport provision on site.... while simultaneously demanding that far more people would have to leave their cars at home than do at present, at a smaller capacity stadium. The only "get out of jail card" has always been the walking distance to town.... the public transport nirvana that handles multiples of the stadium's capacity every Saturday and every rush hr. Tbh, this argument has only been reinforced many times on these pages, with people quoting their best speed-walking times from various key locations, and there was very little clamour before the first test event exposed the obvious issues, more so the second one. Neither events anywhere near a capacity stress test.
Tellingly, both Rotheram and the club have presented a united front, declaring the 2nd test event "a great success". Obviously, they are desperate to get the safety certification across the line. They're probably hoping for funding from the likes of the Euros/Ashes to provide more infrastructure and the arrival of the Gliders in 2028 to act as a better city-centre-connecting people-mover. With the longer term intention being that beyond that period, the whole Liverpool Waters/Ten Streets and other associated developments will prompt much more permanent infrastructure solutions nearby. In the meantime there are lots of glaringly obvious lessons to be learnt and acted upon.... but I do think that there may be some relatively easy quick-fix solutions for in the shorter term too.
Last edited:
brieverton
Player Valuation: £50m
I would assume the club have channels open to raise concerns and if that fails they should go public - it's as simple as that really.
We have seasoned people of repute and experience at the club now with decades in business. The stadium is the catalyst to regeneration and investment.
We've just had TFG's fixer-in-chief appointed to the board. I'm sure Dan Friedkin won't get involved but this is what he pays people for. Whether it's in private or if necessary, in public, the club should show its weight as a sporting and cultural institution. No Mr. Nice Guy and all mates together. You get nothing for it.
We have seasoned people of repute and experience at the club now with decades in business. The stadium is the catalyst to regeneration and investment.
We've just had TFG's fixer-in-chief appointed to the board. I'm sure Dan Friedkin won't get involved but this is what he pays people for. Whether it's in private or if necessary, in public, the club should show its weight as a sporting and cultural institution. No Mr. Nice Guy and all mates together. You get nothing for it.
mccole
Player Valuation: £35m
How criminal is the excuse that staff are coming in on "rest days" the due diligence and complete lack of health and safety for our supporters is criminal.
4 years of building but Temu Macca is too busy getting his photo ops and freebies from the RS to give a flying.
Embarrassing
Tom Hughes
Player Valuation: £15m
Which part of the club's transport plan has not been fully implmented as per their planning application? Are there any missing elements that haven't been yet provided?
The fact that, far from "raising concerns", they're actually calling it all a success, probably tells us the club's true position in this whole process.
The current owners may have more energy and know-how than the previous regime, but so far they don't appear to be voicing any discontent.
Maybe they can negotiate some leveraged infrastructure enabling funding via their investment in Nelson Dock? Achieving more year-round critical mass and a much improved CBR at a site that book-ends the whole Liverpool Warers scheme.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
The planning application should never have been passed. It's as simple as that. It was an act of negligence to give that stadium the green light. Everton didn't pass it, the city council did.
As for the rest: it's such a dog's breakfast of "if this happens, then that could happen - and by hook or by crook a solution will eventually be stumbled into" that it's almost laughable.
This is a state of the art 21st century stadium occupied by a sporting organisation operating in the richest and best known domestic competition on the globe and which is 2 miles from one of the most bustling city centres in Europe. To be talking about a piecemeal and ramshackle method of servicing it is completely ridiculous.
And, btw, the club have pointedly stuck to assessing its own performance within the stadium perimeter. Rotheram has been talking about transport + stadium. There is no united front as I see it.
The club are going to do nothing at all to jeopardise the issuance of the safety certificate and final authorisation to play Premier League football there from the start of next season.
So any concerns they have will not be publicly broadcast.
Sweeneytoad
Player Valuation: £5m
Tom Hughes
Player Valuation: £15m
Colin Chong said the 2nd event was a "resounding success".... the ongoing testing of the whole matchday experience, including transport. I would say that represents a pretty united front (at least publically). The only way to discern any discontent is to have all parties represented in these radio debates..... and wait to see the resultant blame game, if it exists. At present it's all a case of needing some "fine tuning" as far as they're all concerned.
As with the transport plan for desperation Kirkby, the local council can mark their own homework, especially if they think no-one else is going to contest it.... we have no idea what transport negotiations took place in the process or in the Working Group. We ONLY have the final plan (No ifs, buts, maybes nor conjecture). That is the only document in black and white. The club conducted all of its own surveys during 2 consultation processes, to enable them to predict methods of travel of their fanbase. We were all asked about how we go to GP and how we would be going to BMD, with the club affirming that they would require a modal shift equating to at least a reversal of the 60:40 private/public ratio at GP. Armed with all that data/information, their own transport consultants put their transport plan together. That is what has been implimented..... which bit did you not know about? Which bit has the council reneged on?
I, and many others have been saying for years that it's nowhere near good enough, and that a large proportion of the fans will have to walk 30mins or more (the plan itself says so too). Having asked that question directly at 2 shareholders meetings with the club, I can tell you that in the club's view, their transport plan is all acceptable.
As yet, we have no idea if their are any hidden clauses/agreements restricting capacity if certain modal shift or safety criteria aren't met.... just as we didn't with Kirkby, till the public inquiry. We have no idea if there are agreements for funding of further infrastructure if safety certificates aren't granted (by the council!). Of course the major difference here, is that the entire public transport capacity of the whole city region is "only" a 30 min walk away. So both parties have been able to lean heavily on that. Great transport? No! Acceptable transport...? They both appear to think so. Angst? At least 3 yrs too late!!
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
