I don't think the Kirkby stadium is half as bad as people would like to make out. Just my opinion.
- Status
I don't think the Kirkby stadium is half as bad as people would like to make out. Just my opinion.
And I agree with you, its not totally bad, its just not good.
I would say good - because of the design. I thought the design was great.
On a side note, just looking at season tickets in the upper bullens. None left? Only obstructed views left. Which brings me to this....
Earlier in this thread I posted some views of Goodison, one of which was when a friend went the match for her first time. Her view from the back of the Glwadys, as you'll know if you have sat there, was that bad she has been well put off...
Other views your typical fan who will go the odd game and be put off will enjoy;
B
BlackToffee
Guest
About as confused as you can get.
Elstone has already told you that to make money the stadium would have to hit 47,000 avergae seasonal attendances and now there's a report doing the rounds that it'll be capped at substantially below that number...and even if it was achieved it'd only generate circa £6M pa more than GP. There's no non-sporting events possible to generate cash, so that means corporate hospitality will have to really be right on it's game. Unfortunately, I think you have to have a successful team to attract that sort of revenue. As for 'pouring good money after bad' - the club have spent in the region of £12m on the friggin' place since about 1990.
You assume that the report is correct. Well, I haven't heard a Government minster announce the results of the enquiry, have you?
BT, you say you're arguing for realism & that you also believe the Everton Board examined 35 possible sites for a new stadium
The board examined work produced by other people. No crime committed here then. Nobody doubts the validity of the work, only that it wasn't first hand research (i.e. done by Everton consultants directly) Its not a crime to do utilise someone else's research, nor is it a crime to come to the same conclusion. So, what's your beef?
•Everton’s business plan for the new stadium is heavily reliant on increasing the average attendance level to 47,000, yet they have failed to survey their supporters on their views now that the truth is known about the stadium being only mid-range at best, the emergence of significant concerns over the transport plans and confirmation that the move will fail to generate £10M per season for the manager as promised by Keith Wyness.
•Everton cannot demonstrate a need for a 50,000-seat stadium in Kirkby; last season Everton’s average attendance was 37,000 (9) and, unlike those clubs considering relocation or having relocated, Everton does not have a season ticket waiting list. That LFC and Spurs can demonstrate substantial waiting lists would appear to indicate that they would easily fill their proposed stadia.
•The transport plan is fraught with difficulty. The transport infrastructure of a town of 40,000 is ill equipped to accommodate a temporary surge in use by an additional 30,000 to 50,000 visitors. In the absence of any tangible improvements to that infrastructure, a reluctance by Knowsley Council to accommodate additional vehicles in the town and a national policy to discourage car journeys, a range of measures, that have been described by the applicants transport expert as “trailblazing” and “not used by any other football club”, will be put in place to manage visitors to the Kirkby stadium. A two-mile car exclusion zone, extending beyond Kirkby, will be in operation around the stadium on matchdays which means that, in the absence of any third party car parks and the council prohibiting parking on any school or council property, the anticipated 24,000 supporters arriving by car (12) will have to make use of the park & walk and park & ride facilities, some supporters will have to endure a forty-five minute walk. Those 4,300 (13) travelling by train back to Liverpool will have to tolerate being held in “queuing reservoirs” by officials for up to 90 minutes and the prospect of being “crush loaded” (14) onto trains due to the single track configuration which allows only one train every fifteen minutes (15). Whilst the arrival of supporters can be somewhat self-determined and staggered, the departure will be as a collective mass and this is where, due to the volume of supporters moving mainly in one direction, towards Liverpool and beyond, dissatisfaction with the chosen location will develop.
Kirkby is 9 miles from Liverpool City centre; the average distance for a premiership club being 2.6 miles.
•The restrictions already placed upon the stadium will limit the opportunities for Everton to generate non-football revenue. Knowsley Council will have free use of the facility on 100 occasions throughout the year, almost a third of the year, and the council have already stipulated that no music concerts will be allowed.
Just a few major points.
•Everton cannot demonstrate a need for a 50,000-seat stadium in Kirkby; last season Everton’s average attendance was 37,000 (9) and, unlike those clubs considering relocation or having relocated, Everton does not have a season ticket waiting list. That LFC and Spurs can demonstrate substantial waiting lists would appear to indicate that they would easily fill their proposed stadia.
•The transport plan is fraught with difficulty. The transport infrastructure of a town of 40,000 is ill equipped to accommodate a temporary surge in use by an additional 30,000 to 50,000 visitors. In the absence of any tangible improvements to that infrastructure, a reluctance by Knowsley Council to accommodate additional vehicles in the town and a national policy to discourage car journeys, a range of measures, that have been described by the applicants transport expert as “trailblazing” and “not used by any other football club”, will be put in place to manage visitors to the Kirkby stadium. A two-mile car exclusion zone, extending beyond Kirkby, will be in operation around the stadium on matchdays which means that, in the absence of any third party car parks and the council prohibiting parking on any school or council property, the anticipated 24,000 supporters arriving by car (12) will have to make use of the park & walk and park & ride facilities, some supporters will have to endure a forty-five minute walk. Those 4,300 (13) travelling by train back to Liverpool will have to tolerate being held in “queuing reservoirs” by officials for up to 90 minutes and the prospect of being “crush loaded” (14) onto trains due to the single track configuration which allows only one train every fifteen minutes (15). Whilst the arrival of supporters can be somewhat self-determined and staggered, the departure will be as a collective mass and this is where, due to the volume of supporters moving mainly in one direction, towards Liverpool and beyond, dissatisfaction with the chosen location will develop.
Kirkby is 9 miles from Liverpool City centre; the average distance for a premiership club being 2.6 miles.
•The restrictions already placed upon the stadium will limit the opportunities for Everton to generate non-football revenue. Knowsley Council will have free use of the facility on 100 occasions throughout the year, almost a third of the year, and the council have already stipulated that no music concerts will be allowed.
Just a few major points.
B
best little spaniard
Guest
I really hate all this Stadium stuff, it turns all against each other.
And that is one of the reasons I am against it. If we are all fighting each other over it then it can't be good.
For example, tomorrow the club comes out and says, "We're going to redevelop Goodison Park into a 50,000 seat Stadium of a high class" then would anyone have a problem? Would we be fighting over that?
Just one view point anyway
And that is one of the reasons I am against it. If we are all fighting each other over it then it can't be good.
For example, tomorrow the club comes out and says, "We're going to redevelop Goodison Park into a 50,000 seat Stadium of a high class" then would anyone have a problem? Would we be fighting over that?
Just one view point anyway
Always said that isn't good enough. Be interesting to know more details about that. Not surprised about the "no music concerts" though, a lot of houses nearby.
Oh, and Kirkby isn't 9 miles away from Liverpool. 8 mile drive - and these things are normally measured as the pigeon flies.
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
The stadium itself is probably one of the lesser problems with the proposal, imo. From the information presented it just doesn't seem to make any business sense to me - & yet that was presented as the main reason for moving in the first place.
Hard to come to any conclusion really Dennis, its difficult to decipher all the "facts" - its hard to know what to believe.
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
Other people's research? - not done by Everton consultants?
Are we utilising research done by Rs, who would be working to somewhat different criteria? If not, who else would want to examine 35 possible locations for a football stadium?
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
Well if you believe the Board when they claim that moving to Kirkby is the right move, it seems reasonable to accept the information provided by the club, their partners & contractors at face value in assessing the merits of the scheme. Consider the amount of debt, the paltry profit estimated, the provisos for achieving that profit, the admitted limitaions of the tranport "plan" & the likely capacity capping, the restrictions on stadium use for generating additional revenue.
I started from the same place : only option available ; Hobson's Choice for cash-strapped club, etc. - but as we gradually got more information (not pro- or anti- Kirkby propaganda) it just started to make less & less sense.
B
BlackToffee
Guest
I've not seen the full research, nor I suspect have many people, so I don't know what the underlying assumptions were to start with. You are allowed to take other research and draw your own conclusion. It is allowed in research, as it is allowed to read the same research and come to a completly different conclusion. Because it was done by the Rs doesn't in itself make it bad research.
In order to decide if the Board make the wrong decison about the research we would need to read the original research, only then could we conclude that the underlying assumptions are so different to make the conclusions unreliable.
I have a life to live, so its not something I'm even gonna contemplate just to prove a point.
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
I just wondered where this research came from, really. Why would our commercial & football rivals share their research with us, & if they didn't who else would have a need to do that type of research? Maybe this whole issue has made me a little cynical.
B
BlackToffee
Guest
Clearly gleaned from other sources, but some really good points. Thank you. One of the few specific posts against Kirkby which I can say is clearly challeging.
Don't have any immediate response to the points made, but just to thank you.
Inner-city
Player Valuation: £2.5m
Why was one of my posts deleted?
Last edited:
- Status