Exactly. The promise when the fans were polled was 50,000 with room for expansion.
- Status
Exactly. The promise when the fans were polled was 50,000 with room for expansion.
teppic
Player Valuation: £50m
if i read that correctly, cutting out things that have already been stated...
are they really going to recommend a reduction in capacity? goodison is 40,000. kirkby is 50,000?
in all honesty, and i want everton to move, is there any point going to a stadium with the same capacity?
irony of irony would be we finally get the go ahead from the government and everton say no.
what a mess!
are they really going to recommend a reduction in capacity? goodison is 40,000. kirkby is 50,000?
in all honesty, and i want everton to move, is there any point going to a stadium with the same capacity?
irony of irony would be we finally get the go ahead from the government and everton say no.
what a mess!
Shafted from Day 1. We cant say no, we have commited ourselves to it. Complete joke, you watch SunTan Bob come out with all sorts of bollocks.
Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian
The Unobstructed View
may as well just move to the toilet over the park
Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian
The Unobstructed View
andy burnham also put himself forward to broker some kind of deal regarding groundshare, i reckon the gov and the council would prefer that so if whats been said is correct then it puts everything in their favour.
*all speculation obviously
*all speculation obviously
B
BlackToffee
Guest
This all sounds like the type of fudge that we have become accustomed to from contentious enquiries. As a pro Kirkby supporter, I'd have to say, if it really is decreased to 40,000 the first question would be, is there a process that would increase it to 50,000 without a lengthy enquiry.
The second comment would be "well, after all that, what's the point of moving?" We want a bigger, modern stadia. In this instance size does matter.
And to those detracters, one reason I am pro Kirkby is because nobodies has demonstrated how a move 4 miles up the road automatically turns a top 6 team into mid table strugglers. Sorry, had to get that dig in, but i am sure someone with a bit of savvy can break it down for me.
Anyway, I'm not really concerned until I see the official announcement, but its a welcomed development in part.
The second comment would be "well, after all that, what's the point of moving?" We want a bigger, modern stadia. In this instance size does matter.
And to those detracters, one reason I am pro Kirkby is because nobodies has demonstrated how a move 4 miles up the road automatically turns a top 6 team into mid table strugglers. Sorry, had to get that dig in, but i am sure someone with a bit of savvy can break it down for me.
Anyway, I'm not really concerned until I see the official announcement, but its a welcomed development in part.
It baffles me how anybody can still be pro-Kirkby, really does.
I'm pro-move - as remaining at Goodison isn't sustainable.
B
BlackToffee
Guest
It surprises me that people who oppose Kirkby still think sound bites are FACTS.
Anyway, just to re-iterate (and keep on the subject without opening world war 4 again), I can't see the rationale for reducing the stadia capacity if true. No new stadia has been built with less than 50,000 capacity that I know of. If true, I can see this being the basis of an appeal as the main issues have been about the retail element of the scheme and the football club has not been a central part of the enquiry, as much as we would want it to be.
Perhaps he hear wrong, and it meant the retail foothold was being reduced as it would seem strange to keep the same footspace, but reduce the stadia size.
I realise that, but DK is not an improvement in my eyes. Its just the only option we have with the current board and we are stuck with the current board for at least untill the Kirkby nightmare is over.
Refit Goodison
Rebuild Goodison
Build somewhere else better
Share with RS
Share with Marine
Kirkby
Tell me which soundbites I think are FACTS.
Keep Everton In Our City - Our Position Explained
Read that, ignore the "sound bites" and read what experts have to say.
Read that, ignore the "sound bites" and read what experts have to say.
On Goodison? I think it is, mainly because it would bring sustainability.
The argument is, another alternative would be better.
Sound. I could normally get on board with that argument. But it quickly comes unstuck when no feasible alternatives can be provided, and they can't. We missed the boat with Kings Dock, big time. Although it proved without doubt that a commercial partner is required, a commerical partner being someone like Tesco.
In an ideal world of course, an investor would come in with billions and build us a San Siro and charge a fiver in to fill it. Fingers crossed ay. Until then, theres two options. Remain at Goodison waiting for someone to come in and give us a few hundred million to build a new ground, or Kirkby.
B
BlackToffee
Guest
Keeping GP as it is is not an option for development. How some people can so easily dismiss the 4 - 6,000 obstructed view as unimportant is obsurd, but understandable if they have no better credible arguments.
- Status