Aint that the sad truth mate!
- Status
Aint that the sad truth mate!
B
best little spaniard
Guest
Seems a better option than following Bill blindly to Kirkby.
There are no other options because they don't want there to be any. Take away their plan A, and others will materialise.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Things change very quickly. We cant afford to redevelop Goodison under a regime that hasn't put a penny into investment. A different regime might be more ambitious. There's also more than one way to part-fund a stadium than letting Tesco drag the club up to another town.
All ifs of course! Hope your right mate - cant see it myself - more lost years.
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
I don't know about back to square one - more like forward to square one! Your last sentence is inaccurate, back in 2007 "Kenwright was forced to concede that if the Kirkby plan does not happen, then Everton will have a plan B of reconsidering a redevelopment plan for Goodison." [Daily Mail] So Plan B is to think about Plan B, if they really have to - although more likely they'll pass the responsibility on with the shares. It's pointless to speculate what this or any subsequent Board may do instead of DK, but that doesn't mean we should stop pointing out that any assessment of the merits of DK seems to end up all negatives & no positives - sorry : no unobstructed views, of course!
&, Neiler, whatever may happen instead of DK would mean we'll waste more time working towards another solution that could probably have already have been delivered, like KD, but we'll waste a lot more years in Kirkby because the only solution to that problem will be to wait until it's paid off before we can even start on a way out of there. By then the damage to the club could be irrevocable.
So the cost of developing or rediveloping a ground else where would be free.
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
Would it? That's great news! If only we weren't locked into this DK exclusivity agreement
B
best little spaniard
Guest
Would it? That's great news! If only we weren't locked into this DK exclusivity agreement
How much is that worth?
So if we pulled out, what would it cost us?
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
I don't know. I've never seen a copy of the agreement, it may not be in the public domain - it may not really exist for all I know. Davek might have more info on it.
Would it? That's great news! If only we weren't locked into this DK exclusivity agreement
Reasoned, balanced reflective and yet some what analytical, everything you expect from this debate.
Those against Kirkby really are the best advertisement for moving|!
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
I normally find your posts worth reading, Neiler - even where I may disagree with your point of view, but the last couple read like they could have been by DuncIrkSpirit!
No one as yet has come up with either a financialy viable alternative for me - despite asking for the past year and a half!
That is my point of view mate all this talk of other alternatives or redevlopment etc - its the same old rethoric really - the club cant sustain it on its turnover or profit - there is a reason we are biting the hand of Tesco.
If Kirkby goes away everything will be ok? - it frankly wont! Its similar to the bore of everything will be fine when Kenwright leaves and we get a billionaire. Ive made an informed decision on the move and personally i beleive its the best option the club find themselves in now.
Last edited:
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
Why should we come up with an alternative? It would be impossible for any supporter to do so, as well as a pointless exercise.
The Board offered some supporters a vote on DK : Yes or No. There was no alternative offered to weigh it against, just the proposal to be judged on it's merits. I don't see why we should not be able to do the same now.
If we are not in a sustainable position now, why do you think we should choose to make it even worse? If you have made an informed decision you must be looking at very different information to me. If the best option is DK, then the Board might as well just fold the club now - that would be more merciful than a slow death.
Thats it really though mate isnt it - its hard to come up with a financialy viable alternative to build a new ground - hell its impossible to even redevelop the ground. The why should I? defence doesnt really add any credibility to the no side or debate. From what ive read and ive tried to be open minded, its either a defensive reaction of why should I? or a deferral on the basis - We're locked in to an agreement. I guess all those guys who want to help build a new ground will have to get in line with all the billionaires trying to buy the club. This whole we are not free to pursue other options is bull really its frankly not viable. I dont see anyone throwing money at Liverpool to assist them with Stanley Park.
Isnt the Yes/No option that the club offered the definites within most objectors opperate, there are so many well researched cirticims of the new ground (i have some myself), but what do any lobby group do? seek to comfront, destabilise and financially impinge on the club. You say a ground move would be "even worse" try the cost of defending a call in part aided by fans "who only want whats best for the club". Surely if peoples concerns are about a specific aspect of the stadium, transport etc - some constructive partnership approach could be used with the club rather then just a "no means no" or confrontational approach. How can you take "fans" or anyone seriously in debate when they contributed to the cost of the call in to the club to the tune of a repoted 10 mill +. Or happily clappidy quote the architect of the current situation Bradley " a cow shed in Kirkby" - laughable given his influence in the call in and the council rejecting proposals for Bellfeild. How can you take seriously people who dont want to move but yet assist to cause so much pain fiscaly to the club and wine and dine Mr Bradley. But hey its more fun banging on and saying no to transport plans blah blah then working construtively and inovateivley with the club to improve their concerns and the project in general.
Had to lol when you mentioned the clubs lack of leighway to choice, i guess greay areas or negotiations arent meant for us Evertonians.
Like i say ive read an awfull lot on the move - i was always for it - its a good move - it could have been a great one had people invested their energy into it instead of against it - but like i say i think those who are against do a hell of a job in advertising what a good move it is.
Last edited:
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
Are you on something tonight, Neiler?
Even if, as an ordinary supporter, I happened to have the ability to design a stadium, and find a suitable piece of land or acquire the additional land to enlarge the Goodison site, and negotiate attractive deals for the construction and the funding, and get planning permission - & I do think that to expect this of supporters is a little unrealistic, frankly, then it would still depend on the Board to approve it & as they seem dead set on DK, I suspect they would still not be interested (exclusivity agreement & all that). I still don't see the merit in claiming DK is good because any alternative idea is purely hypothetical, the reality is we have quite a lot of information about DK & it's not very good at all.
I can't really comment on your attack on lobby groups as I'm not part of one & never have been. Although I think your comments about the DK proposal being called in are a bit wide of the mark, as that was due to the objections to the scale of the retail element of the proposal, as I understood it.
Your comments about the transport plan just don't make sense - rather like the transport plan. The only constructive way to improve the transport arrangements, as far as I can see, would be to invest huge sums into increasing the public tranport or road network capacity - this would be a project far beyond the capability of the club & the non-match day volumes would not merit the investment to increase capacity to the levels necessary to cope adequately on match days. It would also necessitate the club seeking an even greater level of debt to complete the project.
I still fail to understand why anybody feels this is a good move, unless they made that decision many moons ago & refuse to reconsider, regardless of what further information becomes available. It seems as though the only case I ever hear in favour of DK is that we can't afford anything else, but increasingly it appears to me that we can't afford DK. What is it, apart from the lack of obstructed views, that makes you consider DK "a good move"?
- Status