Stadium Thread - ALL Kirkby/Stadium Discussion Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
davek said:
Spot on. Only because they've taken up a fixed position could anyone now still support this move. Imagine if that'd have been in it from the begining: "We're moving to Kirkby because it'll be a facility led improvement in our position...What capacity is the new stadium? Erm 40,000". :unsure:

Elstone stated that only with a 47,000 gate average would a stadium up there bring in the region of £6M extra for Moyes per season. £80m for the pleasure of the same capacity would see Moyes selling every year. Mind you, no change there then.
Click to expand...

I know your not from KEIOC, but they think we're small time anyway, so I am not sure what they'd see wrong with the capacity issue. One of the arguments on the enquiry is that Everton don't need a bigger capacity. So, if true, the flat earth society has "won".
 
BlackToffee said:
I know your not from KEIOC, but they think we're small time anyway, so I am not sure what they'd see wrong with the capacity issue. One of the arguments on the enquiry is that Everton don't need a bigger capacity. So, if true, the flat earth society has "won".
Click to expand...

That's right, now all we need is for the club to acknowledge they were wrong grow some bollocks and tell Leahy where to stick his plans.
 
GrandOldTeam said:
A reduced capacity obviously kills the proposal, Everton wouldn't press ahead.
Click to expand...

I'd be real honest. If this was true about the capacity and there was no possibility of increasing it (i.e. through further planning permission), to me the scheme would be dead in the water.

Everton in that context would be more than foolish to press ahead with the scheme.
 
davek said:
Wrong. When the project was called in last August the government spokesman stated:

"We recognise that there have been strong views expressed about this complex proposal. Ministers thought long and hard about the case and decided the only appropriate decision was to call it in. There is a long-established process in place where less than 0.01% of all planning cases are called in. A case is considered to have more than local significance if it triggers one or more of the call-in criteria such as conflict with national policy,or if it causes national or regional controversy."




:lol: That's right, you dont want to start WW3 do you? You really should get over all this KEIOC bogeyman stuff.
Click to expand...

Davek, I love the Flat Earth Society, erm, sorry, KEIOC (n), its a shame they don't love Everton. They and many of their supporters had plenty of opportunity to win the likes of me over. Instead I was faced with a barrage of puke no different from the Socialist Workers Party shoite. Those who were formally on the Islamic Peoples Front Forum will know the hatred I endured.

I don't appreciate it, and I have developed a deep distrust of them which will take a long time to get over.

But I am sure that they are nice to their family and pets.
 
GrandOldTeam said:
A reduced capacity obviously kills the proposal, Everton wouldn't press ahead.
Click to expand...

If Hancock's report is right, and I dont doubt he's had some contact, it could be that the Inspector/SoS will set an impossible task that the club wont be able to meet and the type of horse trading DENNIS has just mentioned with Tesco might come to pass. Unfortunately, it could also be that the Inspector/SoS's decision will be seized by the club and Tesco, who'd then work for the capacity to be increased ("with assurances") behind the scenes.

If it does go Tesco's way and the club fall in behind them, I dont think it will end in the autumn. This thing will be stretched out for some time yet, imo.
 

GrandOldTeam said:
A reduced capacity obviously kills the proposal, Everton wouldn't press ahead.
Click to expand...

The posters on bluekippers forum say its not a reduced capacity eg less seats, less bricks and mortar or smaller ground but just one of the section 106 agreements that Everton and Tesco have already agreed they would do during planning and that the inspector is holding them to when agreeing approving the planning application. In other words the capacity will still be 50,401 but until they have completed the Transport improvements they will only allow a maximum 40,000 supporters.
 
Last edited:
pistole_pete said:
The posters on bluekippers forum say its not a reduced capacity eg less seats, less bricks and mortar or smaller ground but just one of the section 106 agreements that Everton and Tesco have already agreed they would do during planning and that the inspector is holding them to when agreeing approving the planning application. In other words the capacity will still be 50,401 but until they have completed the Transport improvements they will only allow in a maximum 40,000.
Click to expand...

neat. we still borrow to build 50k stadium but only use up to 40k (as now) pending transport improvements we can't afford & so won't invest in. so even when "full" the stadium will be 20% empty & if the transport situation isn't improved people may start to cherry-pick their matches, average attendances drop & so there is no perceived need for further transport improvements due to lack of demand. (y)
 
pistole_pete said:
The posters on bluekippers forum say its not a reduced capacity eg less seats, less bricks and mortar or smaller ground but just one of the section 106 agreements that Everton and Tesco have already agreed they would do during planning and that the inspector is holding them to when agreeing approving the planning application. In other words the capacity will still be 50,401 but until they have completed the Transport improvements they will only allow a maximum 40,000 supporters.
Click to expand...

A neat one that if true. One of my biggest concerns was always transport. This would ensure that they don't welch on the commitments made because if they do, it'll hit them in the pocket.

<I can hear Davek cursing in the background, knowing the scheme is not dead in the water~ if this is true of course> don't you just love British fudge?
 
pistole_pete said:
The posters on bluekippers forum say its not a reduced capacity eg less seats, less bricks and mortar or smaller ground but just one of the section 106 agreements that Everton and Tesco have already agreed they would do during planning and that the inspector is holding them to when agreeing approving the planning application. In other words the capacity will still be 50,401 but until they have completed the Transport improvements they will only allow a maximum 40,000 supporters.
Click to expand...

But Hancock's report specifically mentions a stadium that is less than 50,000, not one that's 50,000 and the club is penalised with less capcity...which was the basis of Everton's agreement of the 106 agreement as it affected the stadium build. We shall see, but if we're accepting what Hancock reports on one thing then we cant pick and choose what else he says to leave out or in.
 
BlackToffee said:
A neat one that if true. One of my biggest concerns was always transport. This would ensure that they don't welch on the commitments made because if they do, it'll hit them in the pocket.

<I can hear Davek cursing in the background, knowing the scheme is not dead in the water~ if this is true of course> don't you just love British fudge?
Click to expand...

I've never said it was dead in the water. You're a clever lad so you wont mind providing the evidence when I have said that.

As for the 'British fudge' - it is heading that way by the looks of it...not something anyone who wants it built in Kirkby would welcome I'd suggest.
 

Interesting post by Si on NSNO regarding his conversation with Elstone re Kirkby [GOT mentioned in dispatches, which'll please Danny :P]:

I met Robert Elstone a few months ago as part of the "making up" process between NSNO and staff at the club. Infact he was my first point of contact.

During our meeting, after we'd discussed the site and it's relationship with staff at the club, and how we could make it better, we talked about a lot of other things.

He said to me, "What's your stance on Kirkby?" and I told him I didn't want to go. I said that a move from Goodison needs to be right, that it is such a massive move away from a history we are so fiercely proud of, and that I didn't feel Kirkby represented the right move. I said that United make £75m a year from Old Trafford, and that clearly we couldn't compete if Goodison only makes us £20m a year. However, taking the revenue up to just £26m simply doesn't represent the step forward that a stadium move needs to be.

I expected corporate verse from him. I expected him to be a bit scornful too, if I'm honest. He sat back, and he said "Yeah, I can see your point. But at some point the Sky money is going to dry up, and revenue in football is going to drop, and perhaps Kirkby represents getting Everton to a better starting point before that drop takes place."

That was the sole benefit that I can see from Kirkby - that it puts us in a slightly better position when football implodes, assuming it does.

The Kirkby debate is often clouded by arguments and pettiness, which is why facts and figures get lost and not seen by the masses - it has also been subject to some horrendously one-sided reporting from the Echo. Dominic King is the main one at fault for that with his wildly inaccurate statements, although the editorial team have to take responsibility too. On the 100th day that Maddy McCann was missing, EVERY newspaper in this country had her image on the front page. The Echo had an open letter to Evertonians from Sir Terrence Leahy.

Back to the issue of the Kirkby debate being clouded though, as at least I have some control over that bit! On Bluekipper, the debate has been shunted to one side. On GrandOldTeam (Toffeeweb's forum) the thread on Kirkby is locked most of the time, and people are actively discouraged from discussing it. On Bluekipper at least, I think this is as a direct result of some people trying to deflect away from facts on purpose.

There is one poster on there, he used to be called "Smile" - his real name is Colin Lapin, his mum is a shareholder and wears red dresses to AGM's - whose sole aim for the first six months of the Kirkby debate was to instigate arguments and deflect away from the discussion. I believe this is why many people are disillusioned and don't know what to think anymore.

I'd like to think that we get the facts across on here - or at least a fair representation of what I see to be the facts.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top