Season 2011-12
The Mail Bag

Bournemouth find billionnaire investor

 76 Comments: First  |  Last

According to tribalfootball.com AFC Bournemouth have just attracted a billionnaire investor (see link below). Oil billionaire named Maxim Demin has bought half the shares in the League One strugglers for £850,000 and is about to transform the club both on and off the field.

http://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/are-you-watching-everton-bournemouth-find-their-russian-billionaire-2017901

Another one slips through the net, eh, Bill?
Micky Vee, Knowsley     Posted 30/10/2011 at 13:42:50

back Return to the Mail Bag  :  Add your Comments back

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Michael Kenrick
1   Posted 30/10/2011 at 15:07:54

Report abuse

There must be some mistake. The Chairmen told us very clearly that no-one was buying football clubs in this economy. There's no money around, remember.

Whatever happened to the three parties he was talking to the other week? Did the rent fall due on their one-bedroomed flats?
Steve Mink
2   Posted 30/10/2011 at 15:10:33

Report abuse

Billionaire living in Sandbanks splurges a bit of spare change on his local club. Hardly relevant to EFC's predicament.
Brian Lawlor
3   Posted 30/10/2011 at 16:56:28

Report abuse

Sorry, am i missing something? Can anyone buy us or any other premiership club for £850k?
Tom Hughes
4   Posted 30/10/2011 at 17:05:22

Report abuse

Yes.... wolves were passed on to the current owners for a token value. They are now redeveloping their already modern stadium. Where there's a will ....... and all that. You'd think the current major shareholders would be too embarrassed to charge anything more than they paid...... considring the debts they've achieved and the multiple failures they've presided over.
Phil Martin
5   Posted 30/10/2011 at 17:06:36

Report abuse

#2 and #3. Not relevant? or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

Take your pick from the plethora of BK quotes about not being able to attract real investment and then ask why EFC is being starved of any kind of investment.
Steve Mink
6   Posted 30/10/2011 at 17:36:31

Report abuse

#5
Billionaire buys third-tier local club for chump change. Not relevant or comparable to EFC need for a new owner, unless you are suggesting that the current owners sell for a sum well below market value.

Ian McDowell
7   Posted 30/10/2011 at 17:49:21

Report abuse

Its probably a good investment for 850k. If you can get them to the premiership and pocket the TV deal money.
Brian Lawlor
8   Posted 30/10/2011 at 18:12:03

Report abuse

You tell me Phil, how a £850k transaction to buy some shares in a lower league club somehow demonstrates the ineptitude of kenwright and shows another one that 'slips through the net'?

How exactly?
Phil Martin
9   Posted 30/10/2011 at 18:07:47

Report abuse

Not relevant to EFC? When we're told there's no more billionaires and no-one buying into football.

Anyway that's £850k more than Bk's invested into us in the last 8 years.
Trevor Mackie
10   Posted 30/10/2011 at 18:33:36

Report abuse

Is there a market value for EFC? and if so what is it?
Brian Lawlor
11   Posted 30/10/2011 at 18:12:03

Report abuse

You tell me Phil, how a £850k transaction to buy some shares in a lower league club somehow demonstrates the ineptitude of kenwright and shows another one that 'slips through the net'?

How exactly?
Steve Jones
12   Posted 30/10/2011 at 20:51:50

Report abuse

There's a value on the club set by its shares Trevor and, lets face it, £850k buys about 700 of them....out of 35000 odd in circulation.

Thats why this story has utterly no relevence to our situation at all.
Trevor Mackie
13   Posted 30/10/2011 at 21:03:55

Report abuse

Steve

Is our known market value less than 50 million then?
Steve Jones
14   Posted 30/10/2011 at 22:14:08

Report abuse

In simplistic terms you could buy every share in the club for £42mn if the commonly quoted £1200 per share price was agreed by all shareholders. Of course if every shareholder agreed to sell for 10p the price comes down a bit and the control passes just the same.

Looking for a simple 'sticker price' valuation on the club is a job for idiots for that, and several other reasons.

The point being made though is someone spending £850k to get a controlling interest in a lower league club has no connection to possible billionaire interest in us. Trying to dick around with semantics to try and make a connection just looks sad and desperate.
Tom Hughes
15   Posted 30/10/2011 at 22:40:29

Report abuse

What about the crowd who bought QPR? What about the fact that there are some clubs who have been sold twice or more in the same period we've been looking?

BK got control of the club for less than the going rate.... given the net value added during his tenure, I'd say he should be more than happy to get that back. Not so sure his backers will be though. They have no emotional attachment and they haven't had planning permission for their shops yet.
Steve Jones
16   Posted 30/10/2011 at 23:09:37

Report abuse

Whats your point Tom?. QPR were bought for 14mn quid by Briatore and Ecclestone managed to get promoted but, making a £13mn loss, flogged the club on at a premium on the back of Prem football.

Is any of that related, in any way, to the situation we are at where a prospective owner is looking at taking on the secured debt and finding a minimum of £150mn to get us into a new ground that we can start making some money off.

Surely you can see the pattern here Tom?.

1, Bournemouth. £850k - sold
2, QPR. £14mn - sold
3, QPR Premier league version £35mn - sold
4, Aston Villa £60mn - sold
5, Everton £200mn - nah

.....so cheap clubs with development potential sell. Expensive clubs that need major investment to provide increased revenues dont. Fairly straight forward that one I'd say Tom?.
Eric Myles
17   Posted 31/10/2011 at 01:09:16

Report abuse

Steve #17, I'd look at it more like

1)-4) clubs put on the market at a reasonable price and got sold

5) Everton £200mn - you must be out of your mind.

As someone said, shares value is 42mn, that gives the major shareholders greater than 100% profit for doing what exactly? More than tripling the debt and getting the club into a crippling financial crisis.
Tony Cheek
18   Posted 31/10/2011 at 05:30:00

Report abuse

Kenwright and Moyes out, Tata and Solskjær in!! Wouldnt that be nice?
Phil Martin
19   Posted 31/10/2011 at 07:06:34

Report abuse

£200m Steve, you must be fucking daft. Or perhaps you're name is not really Steve?
Brian Lawlor
20   Posted 31/10/2011 at 07:59:30

Report abuse

Phil, instead of calling people "fucking daft"?l, why dont you answer the question you've been asked or are you afraid of being exactly what you're accusing Steve of?

What the fuck has a minor transaction the equivalent of a house price for a decent house in London got to do with Kenwright?
Steve Jones
21   Posted 31/10/2011 at 09:15:23

Report abuse

Take the tinfoil hat off Phil I know fans like you like the thrill of the witch-hunt but your well off target here lad.

£200mn being £50mn secured debt plus £150mn for a stadium.....you know that thing that would enable us to make extra revenue and not continue hobbling along as we are now. Thats is IF the new owners picked the club up for a token value on the promise they'd take the club forward and, we all know, there is precious little chance for that so the price would actually be at very least 20% higher.

£200m is the absolute bare MINIMUM that a commercial buyer would have to outlay to get the club and take it on to a position where it would make any money. That 'making money' bit being the reason they'd look at the club in the first place.

Sorry if thats too many big numbers for you Phil. Guess taking the shoes and socks off didnt help this time eh?.
Tom Hughes
22   Posted 31/10/2011 at 09:19:16

Report abuse

Steve,
I think you inadvertenly answer your own question.

When they have been the ones who have accrued the debt, they have been the ones to fail to improve the stadium how can they possibly hope to ask too much for the club?

The point was that the club have repeatedly stated that there are no buyers out there.... this is patently not true. If villa were sold for just £61m with redeveloped stadium in place then we should be substantially lower. A majority stake in our club at current share price (for a limited company) need not even be £30m. The wolves example shows the actions of a board who have the real best interests of their club at heart. BK's backers have no such genuine motives. Wolves will slowly overtake our club because they have investment and vision..... and a scouse director with ability to deliver. EVERY other club has changed hands.... not all for better, but certainly not all for worse. Given this board's success rate can we really trust them to choose wisely.... or do we get another leveredged debt opportunist to pay off BK' silent partners? Ask the right price and the queue of takers will around the block..... they don't need to build a whole new stadium tomorrow and wolves and others have shown its costs needn't be the scare mongering figures often quoted.... and certainly nothing to frighten a billionaire of any description.
Steve Jones
23   Posted 31/10/2011 at 09:56:45

Report abuse

Tom,

Sorry mate but you've just fully contradicted yourself. "Ask the right price and we'll get takers around the block" as I said above if the clubs shares were offered and bought for £1 the new owner is still shelling out near 50mn to clear the debt off and a minimum of 150mn for a stadium.

Regardless of what sticker price the board hang on the club its stilll going to cost a couple of hundred million quid to put us in a state where we are a viable commercial concern. The football quarter is a pipe dream that has no commercial interest I have seen anywhere electronically or in print. Even KEIOC's FQ page still states that the feasibility studies are to be arranged!. I know you say otherwise Tom but there is still a very tight veil drawn over these interested parties you talked of last time isnt there?.

Believing that a billionaire will come in and spend money redeveloping Goodison on the strength of a pipedream like the FQ requires a spectacular detachment from reality.

Villa, as you say, had the stadium and were the big fish in their little pond. City had a stadium that needed no work and didnt have to be bought as an asset if the 'project' went south. Thats why they have attracted interest over us.....there is no mystery to any of this...no conspiracy theory
John Keating
24   Posted 31/10/2011 at 10:32:09

Report abuse

Pointless talking about takeovers lads. The club will officially announce there is no truth to these rumours..er.. the day after the Wolves game
Tom Hughes
25   Posted 31/10/2011 at 10:31:40

Report abuse

Steve.... where have I contradicted myself? What was the attraction of QPR then... aging stadium and tiny fanbase in a saturated market?

The football quarter has aroused major interest.... including the indian consortiums currently talking to the club after they were attracted by the initial studies carried out by the university and a major developers.

Wolves are currently expandingh molineux for just. £40m for 2 whole new stands.... with further phases planned.... so the £150m figure is your own invention.... for maximum effect no doubt. BK and Ross have taught you well. The truth is GP only requires a approx 1 thousand new hospitality seats, 9 new boxes and a few more seats to match anything DK promised........ and far more, given transport and the imponderable identity issues.

Kevin Tully
26   Posted 31/10/2011 at 10:39:06

Report abuse

Already been denied by " a source"

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/everton-fc/everton-fc-news/2011/10/31/everton-say-indian-takeaway-not-on-menu-100252-29692255/

Why are figures always quoted as 2-500m to buy the club?

We have a ground that holds 40,000 - we are established in the Premier League with average attandances of around 35.000. Guaranteed T.V. income of 50m a year.

Those figures would convince a vanity owner.

Why do we need a new stadium next week if we are bought?

Seems like some people want to find a million reasons why the club has not been sold. Except the real reason - the asking price & conditions of the sale.
Gary Green
27   Posted 31/10/2011 at 10:52:34

Report abuse

This is a complete non story guys. I have a box at Bournemouth which I use when I can't make it to an Everton match and without going into too much detail I am quite close to this situation:

They are not Billiionaires
They have no interest in AFC Bournemouth as a football club.
The current owner goes bankrupt on Wednesday (search for Seven Developments Ltd).
The ground stands on immensly expensive green belt land.
This will all end in tears for the fans.

Obviously this is being played out at a much lower scale than the Everton scenario but it possibly acts as a warning as to how a seemingly golden opportunity could result in devestating consequences.

Having said this, I visit this site every day praying that we have found a buyer as our current predicament under BK is frankly, soul destroying.
Trevor Mackie
28   Posted 31/10/2011 at 10:56:39

Report abuse

Steve

I'm with Tom on this, the 150m is your baby and the share price is circa 40-50 mill.

i'd say a billionaire oil fella spending 850k at Bournemouth wouldn't find it too much of a leap for us at those figures.

Toe rag kenwright.
Steve Jones
29   Posted 31/10/2011 at 10:49:45

Report abuse

QPR's attraction?. Buy cheap and develop with Prem TV revenue attraction as a safety net...as it was proven out. They shelled out £14mn and they sold on a short while later, after promotion, for £35mn. Fernandes bought himself a London-based premier league club for £35mn. maybe he thinks he's got a deal who knows....but, in Prem terms, he's hardly spent big.

£150mn is an outline figure for a new circa 48,000 seater ground with 60 exec boxes and appropriate facilities to make us more revenue. Unless I'm well off the mark that is roughly what Eastlands cost to build and convert to its current standard.

Thats what I'm scaling against....a stadium that will actually allow us to generate fresh revenue. Why you are using a cowshed like that planned at Kirkby as a yardstick for anything defeats me completely!.

I havent seen plans for what is included in the Molineux upgrade, but, I am aware that Cardiff City got their new ground for a ridiculously cheap price around £1.5k a seat.....they've got a billy basic ground and that level of austerity wouldnt help us a bit. If the Molineux upgrade is equally billy-basic what reference value does it have to us?. We need to drag in the corporates. Corporate spend per seat is what 7 or 8 times what a 'normal' seat brings in. We need a certain quality of facility to bring that in.

As for Indians attracted by the FQ - is this the same group of Indians mentioned by the joke website?. I presume you have something that supports what you are saying and you arent peddling the same ludicrous twaddle that is so often levelled at the board?. Surely you aren't wheeling out mysterious 'interested parties' to suit your agenda Tom?.
Alex Higgins
30   Posted 31/10/2011 at 11:13:54

Report abuse

A source close to the club saying Everton are not in imminent takeover is hardly a solid basis. Has Everton officially denied it?
Steve Jones
31   Posted 31/10/2011 at 11:20:49

Report abuse

Kevin Tully,

"We have a ground that holds 40,000 - we are established in the Premier League with average attandances of around 35.000. Guaranteed T.V. income of 50m a year.Those figures would convince a vanity owner."

No it wouldn't because despite all those things we barely break even. Its nothing to do with poor business models or the usual nebulous twaddle that is hauled up on here to explain why we arent richer its that we dont charge as much as everyone else for tickets, have thousands of seats we cant sell regularly and we dont have the corporate facilities to get at the sorts of revenue streams Spurs etc tap.

"Why do we need a new stadium next week if we are bought?"

Because the person buying us will likely do so looking to get a return on his investment.....otherwise why would he buy???. No return at Goodison is going to be possible unless you believe that the FQ will turn Walton into the next Albert Dock and, so far, I see only Tom Hughes, KEIOC and a stream of politicians hoping to get something for nothing who fit the bill as true believers!.

Seems like some people want to find a million reasons why the club has not been sold. Except the real reason - the asking price & conditions of the sale.
Kevin Tully
32   Posted 31/10/2011 at 11:42:58

Report abuse

So, what you are saying Steve, is that no-one will purchase E.F.C. unless they can make a profit?

You had better have a word with 90% of football club owners then - they were clearly sold a duffer.
Steve Jones
33   Posted 31/10/2011 at 11:51:11

Report abuse

I'm saying Kevin that football is a business with escalating costs. Why is someone, with the financial astuteness to make billions, going to buy a business who's revenues dont climb at the same rate as its costs?.

I'm saying that if someone, with commercial motives, were to consider Everton they would have to do it with a view to expanding the revenue generation potential of the club. The ONLY way we do that right now is with a new stadium closer to the City centre than Walton. IF the FQ proves to be more than the wishful thinking of a few fans who dont want their matchday routine impacted and some city planners who are hoping for a free ride on a bandwagon then there may be an alternative, but, I cant see billionaires gambling on that kind of wishful thinking. Maybe Tom Hughes can show some evidence to back his view that there is tons of commercial interest.....I've been looking for it for years and never seen anything hinting at private sector interest.
Kevin Tully
34   Posted 31/10/2011 at 12:16:18

Report abuse

There we go again, with the old " billionaire" required to purchase Everton.

We lost approx £5m according to our latest accounts.

I might be wrong, but I think Everton are not even creditworthy at the moment. If you are a supplier, cash transactions are preferred.

So I would want someone on the board who was creditworthy, a board with at least some financial backing. Why does he or they have to be a billionaire?
Tom Hughes
35   Posted 31/10/2011 at 11:58:35

Report abuse

Steve Jones,

"Fernandes bought himself a London-based premier league club for £35mn"

So premiership clubs ARE still being sold then? ie the precise opposite of what the club have claimed as a reason for EFC not being sold.... and the point of this thread. How much will he have to invest to buy a fanbase and history to match ours? How much will he have to spend to match our revenue? Yet, it still got sold? Surely this is not possible?

"£150mn is an outline figure for a new circa 48,000 seater ground with 60 exec boxes and appropriate facilities to make us more revenue."

So why were we moving to a £100m stadium with just 22 boxes? It really isn't a one size fits all though is it....? You really need to read up on stadium development before you quote one example as an argument-winning bench-mark. White hart lanes redevelopment cost was a fraction of that and has 120boxes within the site of the original stadium. Villas also, and has 105 boxes with only a small footprint expansion.... again at a lesser cost.....

"I havent seen plans for what is included in the Molineux upgrade,"

Case in point.... I gave you a very simple comparison, and you've ignored it instead going for Cardiff's less comparable example, that was built on a new site. Even Wolves' current stadium also has far more boxes than ours, the new one will be superior in both quality and quantity and demonstrates how redevelopment can be done with little or no loss in capacity between phases. The 4th phase is for a triple-decker 20-24k mainstand.... if demand should prompt it. This is costed at £35m and will bring Molineux upto 50k. This is the over-riding advantage of redevelopment.... you build what you need, as you need it, and as you can afford it, you get a greater appreciation of scope and demand of different quality accommodation as you go along. You can also get a greater return from any enabling development if it is on your land. In some cases this may mean building just one new grandstand.... sometimes it may just mean adding a new tier, whatever happens building one or 2 new stands/tiers can be a lot cheaper than building 4. It also gives the chance to build onto existing classic structures as at Ibrox.... and this can't be achieved easily elsewhere. There are numerous other examples if you care to look. It might also be noted that Construction costs fluctuate and are currently lower than even when the Emirates was built.

"As for Indians attracted by the FQ - is this the same group of Indians mentioned by the joke website?. I presume you have something that supports what you are saying and you arent peddling the same ludicrous twaddle that is so often levelled at the board?. Surely you aren't wheeling out mysterious 'interested parties' to suit your agenda Tom?."

I have no agenda.... I am a shareholding, season ticket holding Evertonian with a keen interest in stadia. The Indians have been attracted by the whole Football Quarter principle..... they are involved in a similar proposed scheme elsewhere and see the potential. This has been openly reported elsewhere....
Phil Martin
36   Posted 31/10/2011 at 12:40:57

Report abuse

Steve Jones & Brian Lawlor,

Clearly the fact a billionaire investing in a football club disproves Kenwright's manufactured myth that "no-one is buying football clubs" and "there are no more billioanaires".

But we can see from Blackburn, QPR and Liverpool that this pathetic cover up was already uncovered. This story is just another mere example to contradict what BK so openly tells us.

Going to back to the valuation. Steve yes £200M to get the club, clear undescured debt and redevelop GP is realistic. If the new owners have a half a brain they'll also see a lot of business processes which can be improved and generate more money for the club. The end result is that in 5 years time, they could have a club with a large, smart, modern stadium, with a strong playing squad, and also a strong business. Surely worth a more than the £200M they had to invest?

However this all depends on the terms of any sale. And we all know who stands in the way of that.
Christine Foster
37   Posted 31/10/2011 at 12:55:22

Report abuse

I posted this as part of a final point regarding the sale of the club on another thread a while back, seems quite relevant.
None has ever doubted that board, and it's advisors are individually successful, shrewd businessmen in their own right but have failed collectively to to market the club for growth or for sale.

From the early days of DK, l could not understand the reasons either because as a collective group they have the financial means and contacts to ensure that the club was adequately funded. But they clearly have not done so.

That they haven't acted suggests ulterior motives, that the intent was never to do so but that the intent was driven more by short term hopes of personal gain.
They saw an opportunity to make money through moving to DK and selling out as soon as it was done, using others money to make money.

Now that it's failed there is no plan B except sell and get as much personally for their investment without committing anything more.

Something rotten in the state of Denmark? Absolutely, good fiscal management? No, personal wealth and personal opportunity to make killing.

It didn't't happen, now it's damage limitation as far as they are concerned, l bet the whole thing is toxic to them. They are just a bunch of opportunists whose gamble failed and they want to cut their losses.

They chanced their arm onDavid Moyes delivering a European team, on Kirkby too, as vehicles to make a quick killing for a comparatively small investment in shares.

That's how l see it Trevor, that's because in my life l deal with "successful" businessmen on a daily basis and have done so for a number of years. You get to see what motivates and it's nearly always personal wealth. The scheme, plan, opportunity may differ but they are a means to an end.

Everton FC have been used as an opportunity to make money and not to further the clubs ambitions, a secondary consideration in the quest for personal wealth.
Tom Hughes
38   Posted 31/10/2011 at 12:35:50

Report abuse

Steve,
"Why is someone, with the financial astuteness to make billions, going to buy a business who's revenues dont climb at the same rate as its costs?."

Again, then why QPR as opposed to EFC?

"The ONLY way we do that right now is with a new stadium closer to the City centre than Walton. IF the FQ proves to be more than the wishful thinking of a few fans who dont want their matchday routine impacted and some city planners who are hoping for a free ride on a bandwagon then there may be an alternative, but, I cant see billionaires gambling on that kind of wishful thinking. Maybe Tom Hughes can show some evidence to back his view that there is tons of commercial interest.....I've been looking for it for years and never seen anything hinting at private sector interest."

You have been looking for years? When did you first hear of the FQ? Did you look as closely as you did at the Molineux example I gave you, or do you just have a blinkered opinion (mainly of KEIOC/BU), and decided you'll keep posting it regardless?

On an individual basis, I too would not be averse to a move nearer to the city-centre.... Let's face it though, the club had the chance and blew it...... BIGTIME. They were also approached by another major developer with a HOK outline report that the developer had paid for regarding the loop site, and they fobbed them off with poor and fabricated excuses, and exclusivity deals that were never in the club's interests. You can take a horse to water....

The football quarter homes in on the potential of the whole duopoly thing...... of have 2 major premier clubs on top of each other, with redevelopment schemes for the surrounding areas and all that this can generate. No other city can match this, as no other city boasts 2 similarly highly regarded clubs so close together, and so linked by history etc. It's no suprise that the universities, City-planners and potential developers are all over it..... whether you like it or not..... all that said, as shown by the other examples the redevelopment of GP can be a stand alone project for the right owners and developers.

Christine Foster
39   Posted 31/10/2011 at 13:01:51

Report abuse

Christine Foster
97   Posted 27/10/2011 at 20:06:43
Report abuse

It is the elephant in the room that no one wants to see.

The consortium of key players on the board must have fashioned the opportunity to the exclusion of others, remember the infamous exclusivity clause that lasted for years? It was a perfect means to stifle any other discussion. Whilst such a clause is appropriate during contractual discussions, they were never intended to be used to stifle alternatives for such a long period. The clause was never lifted as far as we were aware, until DK was thrown out.

That football finances are generally stuffed, that the business model is flawed, that.except for the very wealthy and very large clubs, it isn't profitable begs the question of why such a group would invest except in the hope of making money by revamping the look of the club and selling it on for a profit. Property developers, that's about it in my view.
Kevin Tully
40   Posted 31/10/2011 at 13:07:24

Report abuse

Christine, anyone who thinks the current board are not out to make a killing needs to - a) stop bunking off school or b) needs to invest in my new business venture.

Send cheques to GAF Financial Services.
Steve Jones
41   Posted 31/10/2011 at 12:42:11

Report abuse

Semantics Tom. You asked what was going on with QPR. Fernandes is getting a capital city club for bargain basement money...in prem terms...that is in no way relevent to our situation is it?.

You can, as others above have, resort to the 'well Kenwight said.....' playground level thing if you want?. Me?. I find it fascinating that the same people who regularly nail the board for their repeatedly demonstrated incompetence suddenly decide to take the word of the likes of Kenwright so precisely and literally when he says 'no-ones buying football clubs'. Is there some achievement in proving that the chairman talks twaddle for the 37th time that the preceeding 36 instances didnt cover?. I'm late to this site I'm afraid....do you get points for every time you underline the obvious?.

Why were we going to a stadium with 22 boxes?. I've no idea. I still dont know why we were planning to go further away from where the action is in the City centre?. I was never a supporter of DK. I thought Leahy tried to screw us royally through that one and I scarcely believe the apparent reverence he's still treated with in some corners.

I've no argument with what you say the benefits of phased improvement to a stadium are Tom. I think you are taking an optimistic view on scheduling, land acquisition and a couple of other things, but, your basic premise is undeniable. The problem is you are predicating the whole thing on the FQ. Its a house of cards built on a house of cards. The FQ is still born and what do we have as an economic driver?. Nothing. Save for the debt we'd incur on the first phase of the project. I think thats an unconscionable risk.

Dave Roberts
42   Posted 31/10/2011 at 12:45:02

Report abuse

I've no wish to take sides here because I can't claim to know much about the buying and selling of football clubs or of businesses in general. But one thing I did learn to be suspicious about during the DK debate was the mythology around a supposed plethora of interested commercial parties awaiting the collapse of the DK project before queuing up to get themselves involved in the salvation of the club which, at that time, was perceived to be by building a stadium within the city. The best example being the little outfit at the end of Scotty Rd who were (according to some) offering to do hell and all despite having a smaller turnover than the club itself! But what happened after DK fell apart?

Nowt.

Some of these myths were promoted by LCC itself so it wasn't all down to KEIOC and the like-minded but still....

Nowt.

So if there are commercial interests out there wanting to invest in Everton as merely investors or new owners then let us all know who they are, when they had their talks with the club and what happened and why there is still no investment or no new owner. If nobody from KEIOC or anywhere else can answer that simple question then we are back in the realm of myth which is meaningless and smacks of invented evidence, manufactured to make a point. Nobody would be happier than I if there was a genuine prospect of good people as new owners who would invest in the club and take it forward. However, this is made just that little bit more unlikely to happen if a potential new owner is made anxious about supporter resistance (via a vociferous KEIOC or any others) to anything other than remaining at Goodison. A new owner may well consider that to be holding the club back rather than taking it forward.

The latest rumour in the Halewood area is that the current Indian interested party are the same party that has just purchased Finch Farm and that the overall objective is a similar scheme to DK but this time in Halewood and which would include a new stadium. Now I have little doubt that this theory was probably dreamed up by somebody in the English Rose or the Grenadier after 10 pints and that therefore it is load of nonsense but it does beg the question. What if it were true?

Would we then have KEIOC out with the tape measures again telling us how far outside the city it was? More warnings about hooliganism on the streets of Halewood this time? Aircraft flying around Goodison telling the board to listen to the fans just after the board had given the fans a vote? Fans organisations openly supporting other local authorities against the club on the basis of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

If it was me as a potential investor I would be back in India on the next available flight. As an Evertonian I have only two feet to shoot myself in. And they are already torn to shreds.
Tom Hughes
43   Posted 31/10/2011 at 14:17:25

Report abuse

Dave.... your entire angst is aimed at KEIOC when they have not run the club to the point of basket case status..... think about it. The elephant in the room is threatening to trample you.
Tom Hughes
44   Posted 31/10/2011 at 15:28:06

Report abuse

Dave,
One of the most laughable post in a long while. You say you don't wish to take sides then write several hundred words to show that you took sides 4 years ago, and you're not going back on it now. You have allowed you're irrational dislike of a group whose assertions have ALL been fully vindicated, to cloud your judgement and ignore the facts. You talk about "mythology" at the time of DK and then conveniently forget to mention the serial lies (the real mythology) that supported it, and that were all fully exposed at the Public Inquiry. You then go onto qualify your assertion with further myths of your own:

"The best example being the little outfit at the end of Scotty Rd who were (according to some) offering to do hell and all despite having a smaller turnover than the club itself!

Firstly, please do some research before spouting nonsense otherwise the credibility of the rest diminishes pretty rapidly...... Bestway's turnover is measured in £Billions, and dwarfs EFC's many times over.... they also own their own banks and are a major producer of Cement. Hardly the picture you're trying to paint is it? They have been responsible for many well known developments around the country, and some quite local too.

"But what happened after DK fell apart?"

Actually, they approached the club over a year before DK fell apart. They were roundly snubbed (treated very poorly, and unprofessionally were the words used) and were left in no doubt that the club would not be dealing with them..... end of story. The club have never approached them since..... perhaps due to the lack of retail-led enabling enticement at this site detering BK's retail owner backers. The club were told that the Loop development would cost the club £60-80m for a stadium in the same league as the Kings Dock (designed by the same people). Perhaps the inability of the club to raise the £78m for DK has added to any reluctance for developers to return to those who acted so unprofessionally previously .

"So if there are commercial interests out there wanting to invest in Everton as merely investors or new owners then let us all know who they are....... "

The club admits to various interested groups (even today in the Echo)..... how could they deny it when ALL other football clubs have changed hands in the same time period (some more than once)? It really is a none-issue, and certainly nothing that KEIOC should be anymore privy to than you. So what is your point? Are you really saying that no-one as ever been interested in EFC over the past 12yrs? Do you really believe that, and against the backdrop of so many take-overs?

You repeatedly ask KEIOC for the answers, not a single reference to the multiple failures, and yet you say you're not taking sides? Don't you think your asking the wrong people?

"The latest rumour in the Halewood area is that the current Indian interested party are the same party that has just purchased Finch Farm and that the overall objective is a similar scheme to DK but this time in Halewood and which would include a new stadium"

Can you clarify if this is your rumour or KEIOC's, I'm not really sure?

"Would we then have KEIOC out with the tape measures again telling us how far outside the city it was?"

You don't need a tape measure when you can measure the distance from outer-space in miles. Needless to say KEIOC would be opposed to Halewood (or Speke for that matter) for all the obvious reasons.

"More warnings about hooliganism on the streets of Halewood this time?"

This sums it up really.... You are more concerned that residents are shown factual footage of a large scale footy riot by members of a residents protest group (NOT KEIOC).... and yet this is worse than the multiple lies that supported a one sided ballot for a unviable, undeliverable white elephant... wasting years and £millions in the process? Are you sure?

"If it was me as a potential investor I would be back in India on the next available flight. As an Evertonian I have only two feet to shoot myself in. And they are already torn to shreds."

Shooting yourself in the foot? Is that like tying your club into an exclusivity agreement for years for an undesirable, unviable stadium that you can't deliver? Could it even more accurately be equated to allowing Kings Dock to evaporate just so that you can keep control and/or appease your backers? Please get your facts straight..... Have KEIOC led this club to the current precarious position? Have they continually failed to deliver on every scheme that they have embarked on? NO!!! Where is your condemnation of continual failure by those who actually run the club?

The Indian consortia (yes, there's more than one) have been attracted by the concept that KEIOC produced themselves. No-one else! Everyone has embraced the concept to combine the attraction of BOTH clubs in close proximity, to release unprecedented levels of investment.

The bottom line is why hasn't this board delivered the type of club its fanbase deserves? Why haven't they developed when EVERY other major club has, and are all now reaping the benefits of maximising revenues? They have had over 10yrs to address these issues.... of course you knew all this, but still can't put aside your dislike for those who simply exposed the lies, and proved you wrong at the time of the vote.
John Keating
45   Posted 31/10/2011 at 17:04:03

Report abuse

Sorry Dave did you go on holiday the day the inquiry into Kirkby started and come home after it finished ?? Was your next holiday when the conclusions were published and reasons given why it was turfed out ??
Sorry mate you must be one of the few remaining people who for whatever reason will or cannot accept that the whole thing from start to finish was a nonsense based on lies
Steve Jones
46   Posted 31/10/2011 at 16:42:41

Report abuse

Tom Hughes

This site appears to display posts slightly out of sequence sometimes?. Didnt see your post until I'd already put mine in.

"Again, then why QPR as opposed to EFC?"

Because they are cheaper and better located I'd imagine.

"You have been looking for years? When did you first hear of the FQ?"

2009ish I think it was. Last time I spent any time on this site certainly around the time of the DK call in. I remember askig Trevor Skempton and Colin Fitz who would be the target market for the FQ. They had no answers then and I still haven't seen any today. Apart from your comment that RS fans want to use our car park on matchdays. I think thats pretty thin an economic driver to base the future of the club on myself.

"Did you look as closely as you did at the Molineux example I gave you"

Instead of smart arsed answers Tom why dont you just tell me of the private sector interest there is in the FQ and shut me up properly. If I'm wrong on this I can handle that. IF the FQ will do for Walton what the Albert Docks did for the waterfront I'll be bastard ecstatic. I'm from Aintree originally I knocked about in Walton when I was a kid....the old girl tells me I was baptised in Walton Church.

I've every reason to WANT the FQ to work but I dont see it. I dont see the football tourism in Liverpool that you reckon is there. Certainly not outside of matchday. I've never seen hordes of Japanese tourists taking photo's of the park or the tour buses heading up and down Walton Rd?!!. Where is this tourism coming from Tom?.

Where is the commercial interest. Who is in?. What companies are onboard. IF this interest is there then why, in 2 years, has there not been the slightest publicity of it. Lots of academics and politicians beating spouting.....but no action. Your sales pitch is very logical and worthy, but, bottom line who is buying it and, if they are, why the big secret?.

"Let's face it though, the club had the chance and blew it...... BIGTIME"

Yep. Bastards. Now how pointless was that. The city centre is the answer lets try again rather than point fingers eh?.

"They were also approached by another major developer with a HOK outline report that the developer had paid for regarding the loop site"

Did you read that report?. A stadium who's principal structural supports spanned a major roadway on to land not even part of the original plot. Did the club need a fabricated excuse to dismiss that pile of crap?. That was a KEIOC stalking horse surely not a serious design?.
Tom Hughes
47   Posted 31/10/2011 at 18:19:06

Report abuse

Dave,
"Again, then why QPR as opposed to EFC?

Because they are cheaper and better located I'd imagine."

Better located in what respect? Cheaper in what respect? If they got QPR for £35m they could've had all the current Board's shares for that or thereabouts. Then they would've been buying a club with a far superior history/heritage/branding with a fanbase and turnover several times that of QPR despite this board's failings..... so what is better?

"You have been looking for years? When did you first hear of the FQ?"

2009ish I think it was. Last time I spent any time on this site certainly around the time of the DK call in.

The footy quarter idea was first unveiled long after the Public Inquiry, nevermind the initial call in, I think in 2010.

"I remember askig Trevor Skempton and Colin Fitz who would be the target market for the FQ. They had no answers then and I still haven't seen any today. Apart from your comment that RS fans want to use our car park on matchdays. I think thats pretty thin an economic driver to base the future of the club on myself."

Trevor Skempton was one of the senior consultants involved in delivering Liverpool 1 and its associated developments.... I doubt very much that he didn't have any answers.... he and the group have progressed the idea a long way since the initial sketched ideas.... so I suggest you ask the questions more directly. As regards Evertons car park useage I was just demonstrating the fact that LFC's fans are not averse to using them to capacity every matchday and enquired about the hospitality facilities too.... Their massive foreign fanbase fills Liverpool's hotels for every game, moreso when they expand and most will have little reservations in taking rooms at a GP or joint FQ based hotel. Hotels/conference/exhibition developments have been used at several stadia to help fund redevelopment and this city still has a shortfall.


"Did you look as closely as you did at the Molineux example I gave you"

Instead of smart arsed answers Tom why dont you just tell me of the private sector interest there is in the FQ and shut me up properly."

Instead of spouting nonsense about stadium development and costings why didn't you look up the reference I gave you? The Football Quarter is not my baby, why don't you ask the people involved?


"IF the FQ will do for Walton what the Albert Docks did for the waterfront I'll be bastard ecstatic."

Very few saw the value of the Albert Dock pre-1980's, there was little outcry when demolition seemed imminent. Walton has lots of potential IMO.... as evidenced by being one of the city's last remaining and functioning Victorian High Streets that is practically fully occupied, with good solid high density housing stock. Yes, it's a bit ropey and rundown in parts with a lot of decay (but most of that is the 50s-70s stuff), but it's not beyond redemption with plenty to build on and preserve. Similar for the areas around Anfield.... of course all centering around the historic Stanley Park which is a notable space in itself.

"I've every reason to WANT the FQ to work but I dont see it. I dont see the football tourism in Liverpool that you reckon is there. Certainly not outside of matchday. I've never seen hordes of Japanese tourists taking photo's of the park or the tour buses heading up and down Walton Rd?!!. Where is this tourism coming from Tom?."

I think I covered this previously.... There doesn't need to to be bus loads continually going around the grounds, but I'd suggest you see plenty of visitors at both grounds daily. The city centre has millions of visitors a year, how many tour buses are going around? 2 or three?. The hordes on matchdays alone (upto 50+ with both clubs combined) can number in their thousands... combine that with the highest occupancy rates in the UK would suggest that there is potential demand. Put it this way, I know that the city-planners earmarked hotel chains as major partners in the scheme as soon as they saw it.

"Lots of academics and politicians beating spouting.....but no action. Your sales pitch is very logical and worthy, but, bottom line who is buying it and, if they are, why the big secret?."

As I said... why don't you ask KEIOC.... or the city planners or the university? Ask Colin for the name of the major developers who have shown interest.... I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

"Let's face it though, the club had the chance and blew it...... BIGTIME"

Yep. Bastards. Now how pointless was that. The city centre is the answer lets try again rather than point fingers eh?."

I stated a fact, no finger pointing, just a fact in response to your point about city-centre stadia. Feel free to make it happen, offer your support or whatever? Contact the club or campaign for it... I'm quite certain you'll have the full support of KEIOC and many others....... maybe you'll get a better response!

"Did you read that report?. A stadium who's principal structural supports spanned a major roadway on to land not even part of the original plot."

Did you read it? I'm begining to think you only read your own postings. The principal structural supports did not span a major roadway at all.... there was some potential for spanning the road with neighboring developments and walkways but nothing else and nothing unusual (Check out the Emirates or Millenium stadium). Some of the areas earmarked for redevelopment where outside the loop, but were part of the development package put together by the city-planning department. There was potential for some even further afield.

"Did the club need a fabricated excuse to dismiss that pile of crap?"

HOK are the biggest stadium design company in the world. They have designed every type of stadium in almost every country.... they don't really do crap. As far as fabricating excuses, I think you'll find that when the club was confronted with this, Wyness said it wasn't big enough and needed to be expandable to 75k, despite being bigger than DK ( and despite the fact that they hadn't even secured PM for more than 50k at DK, and this was probably going to be reduced to just 40k when the transport criteria couldn't be met)

Tom Hughes
48   Posted 31/10/2011 at 19:41:41

Report abuse

apologies.... that was meant to be in response to Steve Jones.
Steve Jones
49   Posted 31/10/2011 at 22:10:18

Report abuse


Tom,

"Better located in what respect? Cheaper in what respect?"

Better located in the fact that to an international businessman London is much more globally accessible than Liverpool. Better located in the sense that there is far more money and business activity in Greater London than in Merseyside.
Cheaper in the sense that he wasnt paying off the shareholders then trying to find a way of covering £45mn in secured debt on a club with zero new revenue stream opportunities. That before the new stadium investment either way - be that piecemeal upgrade costing little but returning little or a total new build costing a lot and offering a lot! - its still high tens of millions whether in one bang or in installments. Still a lot more than £35mn.

"The footy quarter idea was first unveiled long after the Public Inquiry, nevermind the initial call in, I think in 2010."

Nah the rejection was in Nov 09 and it was being talked about before that. KEIOC were trumpeting the GfE line and the Loop site for all they were worth well before the rejection. It was late 09 that I first heard about this I'm fairly sure of that.

"Trevor Skempton was one of the senior consultants involved in delivering Liverpool 1 and its associated developments.... I doubt very much that he didn't have any answers...."

Doubt whatever you like mate....if there are records from that time in the archives of this site they may be reproduceable. Wound me up no end that people were willing to risk the future of the club, financially, on a redevelopment enabled by a paper fantasy. Still does.

"As regards Evertons car park useage I was just demonstrating the fact that LFC's fans are not averse to using them to capacity every matchday and enquired about the hospitality facilities too.... Their massive foreign fanbase fills Liverpool's hotels for every game, moreso when they expand and most will have little reservations in taking rooms at a GP or joint FQ based hotel. Hotels/conference/exhibition developments have been used at several stadia to help fund redevelopment and this city still has a shortfall."

So effectively the FQ is all about Everton tapping LFC's massive foreign fanbase?. Why are they letting us do this again?. Do you not think that LFC might notice that their fans are subsidising our club?. Maybe take steps to make sure their fans money goes into their coffers not ours?. Or do you expect us to believe that Liverpool FC's generous philanthropy extends to investment in us as well?. This is the club actively trying to screw us out of TV revenue right now?.

Then we have the one recurring issue here....once again....you are talking about matchday. More critically you are talking about LFC's matchdays being when the hospitality trade will make good money. What about the away matches?. You have 19 good weekends out of 52 and your hotel is going broke. You are 3 miles by road away from a city centre with lots of shiny new hotels...and the wrong side of town from the airport. Air/rail tourists will have to go through the city centre, past the hotel choices there, then get out to Walton to enjoy our hotel?. Seriously this is a business plan that we are going to depend on for our future?.

"of course all centering around the historic Stanley Park which is a notable space in itself"

Historic Stanley Park?. I've not seen that much historic in the park in a hell of a lot of years. I think you may be getting just a bit too close to this if you think Stanley Park is going to be a national tourist attaction Tom.

"As I said... why don't you ask KEIOC.... or the city planners or the university? Ask Colin for the name of the major developers who have shown interest.... I think you might be pleasantly surprised."

Tom YOU are using the FQ as a strand in your argument that a billionaire wouldnt be put off Everton by the stadium issue. You are saying this is because the Football Quarter would obviate the need for a new stadium. When I'm asking for the most BASIC details of this wunder-scheme that will save us all you tell me its not your baby and that I have to go and ask KEIOC???. Why?. Whats the big secret?. This is potentially huge news for the locals why are KEIOC sitting on it?.

"Did you read it? I'm begining to think you only read your own postings. The principal structural supports did not span a major roadway at all.... there was some potential for spanning the road with neighboring developments and walkways but nothing else and nothing unusual (Check out the Emirates or Millenium stadium). Some of the areas earmarked for redevelopment where outside the loop, but were part of the development package put together by the city-planning department. There was potential for some even further afield."

Nope. The pdf document of the original report from HOK has conveniently vanished replaced by 'selected' quotes, It, however, quite clearly stated that the structural supports for phase 2 of the project - the expansion of capacity from 30+k to 50+k - had to span over the tunnel approach road onto ground NOT part of the Bestway footprint. Find the HOK report and I'll point out the paragraph. HOK said that a stadium could be built there BUT there were some very big caveats on that!. Smoke and mirrors Tom?.

"I think you'll find that when the club was confronted with this, Wyness said it wasn't big enough and needed to be expandable to 75k, despite being bigger than DK ( and despite the fact that they hadn't even secured PM for more than 50k at DK, and this was probably going to be reduced to just 40k when the transport criteria couldn't be met)"

Ah Wyness yes there is an individual who's words we needed to hang on. Why is it Tom when an idiot says something that suits your agenda he's listened to no matter how much drivel he usually spouted?. When have I ever said DK was a good stadium design?. Why are you continually making comparisons to a hopeless design?. It doesnt mean your concept is valid because its better than the pile of crap that DK would have been....it just means DK really was a big pile of crap.
Colin Fitzpatrick
50   Posted 31/10/2011 at 23:20:54

Report abuse

Steve Jones, you've repeatedly mentioned me being unable to identify who the target market of the FQ would be; I don't remember you asking me this, you've now extended this to Trevor Skempton; can you point out when you asked this, point me to the specific thread? thanks.
Tom Hughes
51   Posted 31/10/2011 at 22:56:25

Report abuse

Dave,

So if you were going to invest £35m in a footy club, you would choose QPR over Everton which on share value you could get for a similar price? How much would you then have to spend to get the same turn-over as EFC? To create the same size fanbase? To create the same size stadium, and then to fill it? Do you know QPR's record attendance and best average attendance? It is tiny despite their location. The debt is an issue, but surely not compared to the respective potentials.... and they do not have to pay the debt off instantly. I'm surprised that Greater London hasn't won as many league titles as Merseyside given this inate advantage. I'm surprised the yanks even bothered with LFC, not once but twice.... when all along they could've snapped up half a dozen tiny clubs in the capital. The location is another non-issue.

"a club with zero new revenue stream opportunities."

Why? What new revenue streams have QPR got....? Like us, they will have to move or rebuild to realise these.... and they have one of, if not the smallest fanbases and stadia in the league. On the otherhand we have a much larger fanbase and an even less constrained site to redevelop or options to move. QPR are nowhere near Everton in any measure of status.... so again how are they in real terms any cheaper as it would cost fortunes and need years of succes to get anywhere near our level.... and in the most footy-club saturated city in the country.

"That before the new stadium investment either way - be that piecemeal upgrade costing little but returning little or a total new build costing a lot and offering a lot!"

Yet another over generalisation without premise.... Upgrades needn't be cheap and nasty and can create exactly the same offer as most new builds, but often they are cheaper to build because 4 whole new stands are not needed...... Hence the reason why most clubs still redevelop existing stadia. Not to mention the other glaring benefits connected with continuity.

The initial idea for the FQ evolved just after the public Inquiry in March 09, but it wasn't launched publicly in anyway till 2010, and the anouncement coincided with the 118th aniversary of the famous split in 1892.... so I'll let you do the sums.

"KEIOC were trumpeting the GfE line and the Loop site for all they were worth well before the rejection."

I don't remember them ever actually using GFE's material as such since this material had dated by then, but they acknowledged it, and the fact that BK had help fund it. The Loop site option appeared a few weeks before the ballot (2007) and was an idea of Trevor Skempton in conjunction with the city planners and the owners of the site etc...... it formed part of KEIOC's presentation of options to DK.

"Doubt whatever you like mate....if there are records from that time in the archives of this site they may be reproduceable. Wound me up no end that people were willing to risk the future of the club, financially, on a redevelopment enabled by a paper fantasy. Still does."

Wound you up because people were circulating initial ideas that were at early discussion stages.... but you wanted to know the minutea and lists of backers and all the figures etc? Did it ever occur to you that you can arrange to meet them, or attend ANY of their meetings to raise any concerns...... or would that be too much effort and spoil you being able to spout anything on here. As I said, Trevor Skempton is a very experienced professional who has worked on many major projects like this...... things have progressed a lot since then, why don't you ask them again, instead of shouting personal opinions based on nothing at all? If the FQ concept is dead on its feet they will tell you.

"So effectively the FQ is all about Everton tapping LFC's massive foreign fanbase?."

No, it isn't.... all I was demonstrating is that the concept of duopoly and shared infrastructure is already in place. It can only exist in that location, and further to that exists development and funding opportunities for other major complementary developments as outlined in the FQ concept that are also unique to the shared location. Simple as that really!

"You have 19 good weekends out of 52 and your hotel is going broke."

There are no major hotels going broke in Liverpool..... major chains are queuing to build here. GP is on a major arterial road and only 2.5 miles from town. The hotel would offer the attraction of dining areas over-looking the pitch, and even rooms converted from exec boxes rented at a premium. Scouse exiles returning home, Football enthusiasts, Tourists, visiting businessmen interested in football or just attending on site conferences/exhibitions will take up non-matchday rooms.... just as they do at several similar stadia elsewhere. The highest occupancy rates in the UK and the added attraction will see to that.... moreso should the other FQ developments also appear.

"Historic Stanley Park?. I've not seen that much historic in the park in a hell of a lot of years."

Well once again that shows your ignorance on the matter. I suggest you visit again soon and see the major refurb work already done, and the rest planned or already underway. The listed status alone could've indicated the potential in this respect.


"Tom YOU are using the FQ as a strand in your argument that a billionaire wouldnt be put off Everton by the stadium issue."

No I'm not, I'm simply responding to your points about the FQ. The fact that several other clubs have been bought despite similar stadia concerns, including most recently QPR and more locally LFC already refutes the old stadium argument. It's an issue, but need hardly worry a billionaire or any businessman with vision and a track record for delivery as with Steve Morgan at Molineux (have you read about them yet?)

"You are saying this is because the Football Quarter would obviate the need for a new stadium."

Again, no I'm not. Redevelopment is an option even as a stand alone project... as already demonstrated by the examples given. Could it be that conversely you are so against the FQ (despite knowing so little about it) because it averts the need to relocate which is your own personal fave? Personally you seem to only want to be against ANYTHING that KEIOC have been for.

"Nope. The pdf document of the original report from HOK has conveniently vanished replaced by 'selected' quotes, It, however, quite clearly stated that the structural supports for phase 2 of the project - the expansion of capacity from 30+k to 50+k - had to span over the tunnel approach road onto ground NOT part of the Bestway footprint."

Conveniently, I have a copy... and no structural parts of the stadium need bridge the roadway. Access roads and potentially ancilliary buildings could do this... but the stadium itself can fit within the site... as demonstrated by images superimposing their outline design.... at the end of the day it's hardly a show stopper (as demonstrated by the examples mentioned, coincidentally both HOK designs) so what's your point.


"Ah Wyness yes there is an individual who's words we needed to hang on. Why is it Tom when an idiot says something that suits your agenda he's listened to no matter how much drivel he usually spouted?"

You asked when did the club fabricate excuses for not entertaining the Loop proposal, so I told you.... Wyness was the club's representative at the meetings.... and that's what he said. It's all well documented, and that's the reason why Bestway walked away. If you need to speak to Bestways people to confirm this I could give you his name... or you could get it off their website.... but to be honest it was well reported at the time.
Eric Myles
52   Posted 01/11/2011 at 00:57:34

Report abuse

Steve,

"Better located in the fact that to an international businessman London is much more globally accessible than Liverpool."

Any international businessman knows that he can get flights into Manchester which is only 30 miles from the centre of Liverpool, much closer than Heathrow is to the centre of London and much less traffic.

"Better located in the sense that there is far more money and business activity in Greater London than in Merseyside."

But not in terms of the comparison of the two football clubs. QPR turnover is less than ours, so there is far more money and business activity as a result of investing in Everton thatn in QPR.
Steve Jones
53   Posted 01/11/2011 at 02:14:59

Report abuse

Colin,

I've looked through the archives I can search and it was around the start-mid of December 2009. I know this as we discussed ESR at about the same time and I found that thread. I cant find the thread in which we discussed the FQ and Trevor Skempton came in on - perhaps site admins can help?

Tom, Eric I'll come back to you later.
Steve Jones
54   Posted 01/11/2011 at 13:31:53

Report abuse

Tom,

"So if you were going to invest £35m in a footy club, you would choose QPR over Everton which on share value you could get for a similar price?"

Hard to say Tom - I wouldnt buy into either with £35mn. To understand Fernandes specific motives you'd have to ask the man himself, but, I can see why a London club would be preferable, to an international businessman, to a provincial city based one. If I wanted to limit my spend I'd go for QPR because I dont believe there is any way to increase EFC's revenue without a new stadium....because there is no substance visible in regional redevelopment proposals and no more revenue options to be had where the club are sited currently. Maybe, with QPR, I have many of the same limitations but I dont have a £55mn+ wage bill and set expectations of Europa League football, at least, from the fanbase to try and hit.

"I'm surprised that Greater London hasn't won as many league titles as Merseyside given this inate advantage. I'm surprised the yanks even bothered with LFC, not once but twice.... when all along they could've snapped up half a dozen tiny clubs in the capital. The location is another non-issue."

You are surprised that the Yanks bothered with LFC twice?. Why?. Liverpools brand is what they were after and its purely down to a quirk of fate that they were the team in ascendancy when global interest in English football really exploded. Surely you dont have to have this explained to you?. LFC are a unique case because their financial attractiveness owes more to pure dumb luck than any conventional business factor.

"Yet another over generalisation without premise.... Upgrades needn't be cheap and nasty and can create exactly the same offer as most new builds, but often they are cheaper to build because 4 whole new stands are not needed...... Hence the reason why most clubs still redevelop existing stadia.."

Tom you are still predicating your comments on the fact that the location is adequate to make the incremental upgrade process viable in the first place. I lose track of the number of times I've asked for some indication of the private sector money thats going in to the FQ to prove there is some substance to it. Colin Fitz has appeared on the thread perhaps he will show me where I've been going wrong these past couple of years and that my read on this is off base. As I said I'm very happy to be proven wrong as its good news for Walton if I am.You have to accept that this optimism on the FQ is only comig from one direction right now and there is precious little in the public domain supporting your position.

"Wound you up because people were circulating initial ideas that were at early discussion stages.... but you wanted to know the minutea and lists of backers and all the figures etc?"

No. I wanted to know how they thought it would work and who the target market was. The discussions on here were at the earliest stages of the concept I'm sure, but, for there even to be a concept you have to have an idea of what its going to pull in and whether its likely to be worth it?. 2 years later, after trying to follow any released information, I'm still none the wiser.

"Did it ever occur to you that you can arrange to meet them, or attend ANY of their meetings to raise any concerns...... or would that be too much effort and spoil you being able to spout anything on here".

If they cant take the simple few minutes effort of putting together a few keystrokes to answer fairly reasonable questions on their pet project why am I going to want to come to a meeting?. If there is a valid answer to the questions I've asked where is the problem in putting that information out in the public domain?. Why the cloak and dagger?. If the news really is as impressive as you claim Tom then lets get it out into the fanbase as fast as possible where it can do the most good....maybe it will change the minds of more jaded cynics than just me?!.

"why don't you ask them again, instead of shouting personal opinions based on nothing at all? If the FQ concept is dead on its feet they will tell you."

I HAVE asked 'them' and not had any answers. YOU are still using the FQ as the core of your redevelopment argument for Goodison....I'm assuming that to do this you have the answers to the sort of questions I'm asking. If you dont how can you base your whole concept of financial underpinning for the future of Everton at Goodison based on an incomplete picture?. Faith?. Sorry mate, but, I dont share it.

"There are no major hotels going broke in Liverpool"

How many of these are in Walton?.

"..... major chains are queuing to build here."

Liverpool as a whole or three miles out of town?.

"GP is on a major arterial road and only 2.5 miles from town."

I'm taking the Pier Head as a central point in the City Centre. Its 3.3 miles to Goodison by road from there.

"The hotel would offer the attraction of dining areas over-looking the pitch, and even rooms converted from exec boxes rented at a premium. Scouse exiles returning home, Football enthusiasts, Tourists, visiting businessmen interested in football or just attending on site conferences/exhibitions will take up non-matchday rooms.... just as they do at several similar stadia elsewhere."

Which stadia where?. Are these stadia in more central city locations or stuck out isolated from anywhere like Boltons?. Are any of these stadia actually a valid like-for-like comparison to the commercial background that would exist at Everton or is that just a soft comment for you to throw in Tom?.

"Well once again that shows your ignorance on the matter. I suggest you visit again soon and see the major refurb work already done, and the rest planned or already underway."

I think you are talking about a very different park to the one I know. The greatest attraction of Stanley Park was the challenge of getting through it without stepping in dogshit. No amount of refurb will polish that into a tourist attraction....its Stanley Park FFS not Hyde Park.

"The fact that several other clubs have been bought despite similar stadia concerns, including most recently QPR and more locally LFC already refutes the old stadium argument. It's an issue, but need hardly worry a billionaire or any businessman with vision and a track record for delivery as with Steve Morgan at Molineux (have you read about them yet?)"

Everything I've read about Molyneux seems to indicate that the stadium improvements are actually quite modest. A new club shop, a couple of bars, a new museum, some amount of new corporate accomodation (no detail I could find on how much?) and 2500 seats for £16mn in the first phase. It all DOES look a bit cheap and nasty to be honest to me Tom. I imagine it'll come down to how much corporate footfall the new stands bring in as to whether or not its worthwhile, but, I cant see that anything in this proposal is going to earn Wolves any fantastic new amouts of revenue.

Quite apart from that Wolves fans themselves seem to be a little bemused as they dont see the need for 50k seats and dont think they can compete against the Birmingham sides for the corporates because THEY ARE IN THE WRONG PLACE!. Go figure that one eh?.

"Could it be that conversely you are so against the FQ (despite knowing so little about it) because it averts the need to relocate which is your own personal fave? Personally you seem to only want to be against ANYTHING that KEIOC have been for."

How CAN anyone know a huge amount about the FQ if Colin Fitz is keeping it all under wraps?!!!. I am against it because I dont see how it will work and its the core of this idea to keep us at Goodison. We DONT get hordes of tourists visiting Goodison non-matchday today. Despite your outrageous claims Walton isnt a nascent hotbed of tourism and there aren't masses just waiting for the FQ to happen so they can descend on Waltons Victorian bloody High Street. Architecture tourists go to Oxford, London, Edinburgh not Walton!. Its the house of cards element to this which is the real knife twister in this - whats your fall back if this FQ does do what the National Football Museum did and falls flat on its face?.

What do we do as a club if Walton remains the ghost-town it is today?. We struggle on no better than we are right now and we will have spurted away the scant resources we have on the early phases of a Goodison upgrade which will hang round our necks for generations.

Moving to a new stadium closer to the City Centre gives us fresh revenue opportunities regardless of ANY outside factor. It is an inherently fail-safe option. You said yourself visitor numbers to the city itself are strong....putting ourselves there only works to mutually reinforce that strength at little or no risk to club or city.

"Conveniently, I have a copy... and no structural parts of the stadium need bridge the roadway."

Great send me a copy or if we could ask this sites admins to host it temporarily, perhaps, I'll be happy to show you the paragraph that talks about the structural support for the phase 2 tiers spanning over the Tunel approach road. Its quite clear in there. You can make your own mind up from there.
Dave Roberts
55   Posted 01/11/2011 at 15:33:57

Report abuse

Good God Tom Hughes remembers me from 4 years ago.

I must have made an impact then!

Regarding the Halewood rumour I did state quite clearly that it was not a rumour I particularly believed. I even suggested how it may have been contrived in an alehouse. So your question as to whether it was 'my' rumour or not is unworthy and smacks (once again) of invented evidence to make a point....but then I mentioned that in my original post didn't I?

The point I was making was what would be the reaction if it turned out to be true? Your response would suggest it would be the same from some quarters as it was for DK. Tape measures....not everybody has access to Google Earth.

And why on earth would you object to a new stadium in Speke? Speke is in Liverpool as I well know as I used to live there. Do we now have other criteria outside of which KEIOC would not be happy? What was all the 'abandoning the city of our birth' shite all about? (Everton were not actually 'born' in Liverpool as we well know don't we?) Speke is in Liverpool so what could possibly be the objection from KEIOC?

Your comment about my reference to KEIOC's use of the possibility of hooliganism to frighten the residents of Kirkby is not worthy of you or KEIOC. It can never be worthy unless the same possibility is used to frighten the residents of Walton into campaigning for the club's stadium to be moved elsewhere. Otherwise there is no balance and that demonstrates trickery and propoganda which I became accustomed to with KEIOC.

As for QPR (although I didn't mention them so I don't know why you did in your response) there is a special kudos, deserved or not, about owning a London club. Didn't the owner of QPR say he couldn't resist the option of owning a London club for such a low price? Well he did...... and unfortunately Walton does not have the same attraction for investors.

Come clean Tom, admit it. Neither you nor KEIOC would be happy with a stadium that was not within 2 inches of the same footprint as Goodison. Now tell us why.
Tom Hughes
56   Posted 01/11/2011 at 19:12:07

Report abuse

Dave...... I honestly don't remember you from 4yrs ago..... but where have you been.... have you only just got over its inevitable demise?

Speke would be objectionable for all the same reasons...... I also lived there for over 30yrs and still own property there. The public transport capacity and logistics being so distant from the city-centre make it a non-starter.

The comparisons with victorian city boundaries is another red herring...... liverpool's population was expanding at over 100k per decade..... the connurbation was already spreading far beyond walton/anfield...... kirkby and speke will always be the periphery........ and the population is falling. But you knew all this!
Tom Hughes
57   Posted 01/11/2011 at 19:24:31

Report abuse

BTW, Dave, I voted for Kings Dock, as did other members of KEIOC, which rather refutes your argument....... the Loop site was also an a agreeable option IMO. If you read the next post, you might've realised that the QPR reference wasn't aimed at you..... hope all's clear now.

Would love you to quote some KEIOC propaganda...... I suppose you missed the incessant DK lies all exposed at the inquiry...... DK's dead and rightly so. Get over it and stop trying to defend the indefensible that wasted so much time and effort and money.....
Graham Brandwood
58   Posted 01/11/2011 at 19:25:59

Report abuse

Dave Roberts

If there are serious investers out there we will not have to worry about moving to Halewood because serious business people will never risk an investment in a new stadium so far from the city centre.
Phil Bellis
59   Posted 01/11/2011 at 20:09:31

Report abuse

From what I remember, Dave believed all the club's spin, Batman lights and all, and advocated DK as he would have better parking facilities and get to Kirkby just as easily by car from Preston Brook
Hmmm
Ryan Holroyd
60   Posted 01/11/2011 at 20:22:11

Report abuse

"Because serious business people will never risk an investment in a new stadium so far from the city centre"

Well Bill Kenwright, John Woods and Robert Earl tried.

Cunts the lot of them.

Hence why I don't give EFC any more of my money.

More fool other people who do.
Tom Hughes
61   Posted 02/11/2011 at 13:13:24

Report abuse

Steve,

"Everything I've read about Molyneux seems to indicate that the stadium improvements are actually quite modest. A new club shop, a couple of bars, a new museum, some amount of new corporate accomodation (no detail I could find on how much?) and 2500 seats for £16mn in the first phase. It all DOES look a bit cheap and nasty to be honest to me Tom. "

It seems to be becoming a recurring theme.... so can you please get your facts straight before regurgitating your interpretation..... The first phase is for a 7k+ double-decker and costs £16m (not just 2k+ new seats.... it's a whole new stand.... this will then continue around the corners and along the side to give a total of over 20k new seats for £40m, including many more boxes than us.... with a total exceeding Liverpools and several others and new lounge and concourse areas. The third phase may yet be a large single-tier reflecting their history as having one of the biggest Kops in the country, or it may just mirror the new end stand. The whole scheme increases capacity and brings average viewing distances down quite dramatically, with increased viewing options. If demand increases further there are plans for a large Triple-decker on the remaining side.... costed at £35m. Whether you think its cheap or nasty is irrelevant.... and rather subjective.... the facts are redevelopments need not be as expensive as you originally stated..... if you want we can move onto other examples to show this again.
Steve Jones
62   Posted 02/11/2011 at 14:35:38

Report abuse

Tom,

In fairness I said:

"A new club shop, a couple of bars, a new museum, some amount of new corporate accomodation (no detail I could find on how much?) and 2500 seats for £16mn in the first phase."

Quite clearly then I was talking about the first phase including ALL elements from that phase. It is going to provide 7700 seats, but, the demolished stand comprised 5200 seats so 2500 NEW seats ( a massive £6400 per seat cost if you want to look at it that way!).

"Many more boxes than us" sounds like a meaningful statemet until you realise that MK Dons have many more boxes than us!. So its not, in reality, actually saying much is it?!.

Then we come to the part that you have avoided. The observation I made, from Wolves fans online comments, expressing bemusement at the corporate provision seeing that they believed corporate interest would be hoovered up by the Birmingham clubs and that they would see precious little return on that investment?.

I saw one hilarious comment as well that the additional seating alone, if filled, would only bring in something like an extra £1mn a season in revenue so it would take 16 years for phase1 to actually pay for itself and wouldnt chip a penny in to the club coffers until 2028!. Massive oversimplification of course - but amusing nevertheless.

They did seem to like the closing up to the pitch aspect of the new stand though and the enhanced viewing experience. Is this a lesson that we really need to learn with our experience at Goodison though?.

"... the facts are redevelopments need not be as expensive as you originally stated....."

So £40mn for the first 3 phases and £35mn for the last?. Yet you said earlier in the thread that:

"The club were told that the Loop development would cost the club £60-80m for a stadium in the same league as the Kings Dock (designed by the same people)."

Thats even cheaper than the kind of stadium I believe represents about bare minimum!.

"Whether you think its cheap or nasty is irrelevant.... and rather subjective"

Subjective absolutely, but, not irrelevent. Cheap and nasty doesn't work if we want to make a quality offering to the corporate market. If Wolves stadium upgrade provides quality facilities for £40mn that is relevent to our situation (if you cast a blind eye to the whole location problem that Wolves and us share!)....if its quickly thrown up cheap junk then it isnt. Getting poor facilities on the cheap is hardly an achievement is it?.

From the imagery shown of the build so far it all looks a bit cowshed to me. I appreciate they've had problems with the bearing capacity of the ground under the demolished stand and sinking piles 50ft deep to find something solid to bear on cant have helped progress, but, it all looks a bit slap happy with the prefab concrete sections.

Happy to reserve final judgement til its finished of course, but bringing this back into context for us, you cant argue that cheap sheds of stands, even with additional seating and better views, will not go down well at Goodison if the upgrade you are championing were to go ahead..

Any joy on that HOK pdf Tom?. If nothing else I'd appreciate a copy for my own records. Did have it stored, but, was on an old laptop that expired unexpectedly.
Tom Hughes
63   Posted 02/11/2011 at 16:03:08

Report abuse

Steve

"( a massive £6400 per seat cost if you want to look at it that way!)."

So that applies to every new stand that replaces an old one, either on site or elsewhere..... meaning the Emirates cost in effect over £10k per seat.

As far as new stand taking 16 yrs to pay for itself.... at just over £2k per seat at £5-800 per season ticket I think you'll see it wont take that long at all. The Loop stadium was £150-200m stadium as you should be aware if you read the outline report and subsequent articles..... The £60-80m was the club's contribution based on enabling packages identified by City planners and the developers, and dependent on the final stadium design.

"Subjective absolutely, but, not irrelevent. Cheap and nasty doesn't work if we want to make a quality offering to the corporate market. If Wolves stadium upgrade provides quality facilities for £40mn that is relevent to our situation (if you cast a blind eye to the whole location problem that Wolves and us share!)....if its quickly thrown up cheap junk then it isnt. Getting poor facilities on the cheap is hardly an achievement is it?"

Cheap and nasty is ONLY YOUR OPINION..... and I don't share it. The whole stadium does not need to be Emiratesesque.... it simply isn't required. They can have a proportion of that and at significantly lower cost for several reasons.

Do yo know how much city's stadium cost? Would you say that is cheap and nasty? Have you any idea what are the main cost contributors are in any stadium?


BTW haven't got the pdf.... printed a hard copy at the time. You can probably get a copy off Bestway. If you want to meet up you can point out the offending paragraph and explain its relevance.

Steve Jones
64   Posted 02/11/2011 at 16:39:39

Report abuse

Tom

"So that applies to every new stand that replaces an old one, either on site or elsewhere..... meaning the Emirates cost in effect over £10k per seat."

Slightly odd spin on it. As part of phase 1 they added 2500 seats. The other 5200 were already there and generating revenue. The cost of adding those seats is the phase 1 cost less the new additional corporate and retail facilities.

The repayment of that cost cannot include the money that was already being generated by the 5200 seats that were already present. Otherwise you'd be adding that revenue twice.....plainly wrong. The £16mn is new money spent for new capacity. The repayment has to come from that new capacity.

So the phase 1 cost is spread, quite correctly, over 2500 seats, whatever corporate facilities are added that represent new capacity and the retail elements in the museum, cafe and bars.

Its not simply £16mn divided by 2500 seats of course, but, I've certainly seen stadium cost calculation made by factoring in the level of facilities and dividing the cost to provide those facilities, plus the rest of the stand build costing, by the number of seats.

"The Loop stadium was £150-200m stadium as you should be aware if you read the outline report and subsequent articles...."

I'm well aware the cost was higher than the 60-80mn you stated. You're comment above though was very open to interpretation though wasnt it?!.
Gavin Ramejkis
65   Posted 02/11/2011 at 17:54:34

Report abuse

http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%20Evidence/KEIOC_INQ_1.pdf
Tom Hughes
66   Posted 02/11/2011 at 20:50:25

Report abuse

Steve,

"Slightly odd spin on it. As part of phase 1 they added 2500 seats. The other 5200 were already there and generating revenue."

I think you're the one adding spin to get away from the fact that your initial assertion about stadium costs was incorrect..... and you're slowly but surely proving it yourself. The same logic could readily be used to show that Everton currently have a 40,000 seater that generates revenue and therefore does not NEED replacement. It's a massive extra cost.... for what? Of course there are other considerations, as there were for Wolves.

Firstly you're missing the whole point of the Molineux redevelopment. The new board decided that they wanted to address a couple of issues. They needed additional capacity.... they operate at over 99% already. They also wanted to get rid of the horrendous viewing distances because of the large perimeter areas and the predominently single-tier, or stepped two tier format. They could've easily dug down and added another 6-8,000 seats, and filled the corners to yield even more for far cheaper than the model chosen, but the average viewing distance issue would still be there. The double-decker format also offers more options in terms of pricing strategies with upper and lower tiers potentially having different values (not always readily achieved in a single-tier format), and lounge/exec/Hospitality and concourse areas increased quite dramatically given greater floor space.... meaning they aren't replacing like with like.... these are completely new seats in a new configuration offering more value. Apparently there were other issues with the existing stands which were amongst the earliest of the new generation. There are also some construction cost economies of scale from structural repetition around 3 sides. Overlapping tiers giving smaller roof area which can reduce costs substantially. In otherwords when the sums were done the conclusion was that to get what they wanted, a whole fresh start was preferred.

The cost/benefit issue can be applied to new build or redevelopment.... Redevelopment wins far more times than you might think for all the obvious reasons. As you've shown yourself.... Everton don't necessarly NEED the cost of more capacity (some might say they can't fill what they have now, we currently operate at approx 85% and less if you consider we've already had our 2 biggest games of the season). IMO, they should aspire to have some more but it certainly doesn't seem needed at the moment. Perhaps, they could easily adopt the Boston Red Sox strategy and build on their existing structures to provide the corporate/exec provision that is so obviously lacking. A football ground has far greater scope being 4-sided and larger. A new exec tier could be added behind and above the historic Bullens stand, adding some additional high value capacity as done at Ibrox (but better). The lower Bullens could be reprofiled and shortened to reduce the obstructed views and the whole upper tier would be obstruction free..... what cost, what benefit preserving and enhancing historic stadium architecture? If those sums don't add up how about Molineux's triple decker (at 35million) 20-24k new seats.... dozens of boxes... exec tier.... the lot!? As you infer with your reasoning, why bother building 4 new stands when you can have the same capacity/facilities for the price of one?
Steve Jones
67   Posted 02/11/2011 at 21:35:23

Report abuse

Gavin,

Sincere thanks.

Tom,

Page 7 section 4 para's 3 and 4.

Tom Hughes
68   Posted 02/11/2011 at 21:54:37

Report abuse

Steve.....

And what?

What is your point?

Did you not first read page 6? Explaining how even this (they've used the larger Emirates template) need not impinge on the existing roads, with drawings showing the config. It is after all factored into their outline.... with all bridging for access only.

As an aside.... their more recent design for Spurs is a similar format but tighter geometry and a significant footprint reduction.... perhaps that would satisfy your aversion to large substructures or whatever it is that irks you.....

There are no showstoppers in the outline, and certainly nothing beyond HOK's experience. The Millenium overhangs a river, and needed substantial structures to support it and it's sliding roof.... all done at a very reasonable price too!
Tom Hughes
69   Posted 02/11/2011 at 22:06:14

Report abuse

BTW.... sorry to be pedantic but, St Georges Hall (more like the centre of town than the Pier head) to Goodison Rd is 2.5 miles. Given that there are several new major developments planned to the North of the city centre which will in effect move things even closer such as Liverpool Waters... project Jenifer, Everton Park, Hope University etc.... perhaps the distance issue lessens even more.
Steve Jones
70   Posted 02/11/2011 at 21:50:13

Report abuse

Tom,

What initial assertion about stadium costs?. I suggested a thumb-in-the-air £150mn for a new build 48k seater. Effectively a variation on the CoMS.

Nowhere did I say that this would be cheaper or more expensive than Goodison redevelopment. I've suggested on another thread that you lose economies of scale if you do the job piecemeal...you dont have to be much of a civil engineer to understand that one. My opposition to Goodison redevelopment is principally nothing to do with cost though.

My problem is the risk. As stated a failure of the Football Quarter leave us stranded high and dry. We KNOW there is commercial revenue in hospitality and corporates in the City.

You've listed the reasons why a footballing venue offers something unique and different in that market. Now imagine that located on a site that directly competes with the city centre venues instead of being a 3 mile taxi ride away. Thats the closest thing I can think of to guaranteed new revenue and it is not contingent on footfall through the turnstiles. We dont HAVE to magic up another 10 thousand fans to get any extra money in.



"what cost, what benefit preserving and enhancing historic stadium architecture?"

What benefit preserving historic stadium architecture when we cant afford a transfer pot?. What you say is all very fascinating about reprofiling some stands and adding boxes to others. What demand exists to fill the new boxes?.

If we get halfway through the stadium upgrade and have an extra 8000 seats and 28 new boxes then the FQ's novelty value wears off. We go back to barely break even, transfer pot vanishes, we slip back to 34 or 35k crowds and the boxes go unfilled.

We can stop the rebuild, but, £40mn has been pissed away for what?. To save some historic architecture and preserve the matchday routine of the walkup fans?.

Steve Jones
71   Posted 02/11/2011 at 22:29:37

Report abuse

Tom,

Its there in black and white. Foundations off site. Structural supports that either have to span a road or, I'm assuming, have to go a damned long way down. HOK's views are clear on the subject. Whats said on page 7 contradicts page 6 but caveats do generally work that way.

Yes it can be done but..................

You can build a steam powered airship if you want....doesnt mean its a good idea.

Anyway the point being made was that the HOK report showed a stadium that was never intended to be built. I've got no problem with the site and no problem if a smaller capacity, say 42-44k ,or so would fit properly there....its still a practical 5-7k uplift on Goodison ....if we get the corporate facilities. Thats not what is on the pdf though is it?.
Tommy Gibbons
72   Posted 02/11/2011 at 23:24:27

Report abuse

There seems to be a few people on here with seemingly loads of knowledge re: stadium rebuilds, corporate financing, business acumen, business contacts, political contacts etc.. How come they're arguing the toss on a website rather than a boardroom somewhere?? If we're all after the same thing, why can't these people formulate a plan for the saving of our club??

It continually baffles me why people after the same thing but from different perspectives constantly fight each other rather than join together for the common good... I don't pretend to understand all that they present on here but I get the gist, so isn't it about time you stopped trying to educate each other and start producing something tangible between you all??
Steve Jones
73   Posted 03/11/2011 at 12:13:22

Report abuse

Tommy,

Its a fair comment and for my part I have to hold my hands up to that.

Problem is that while both Tom and I both absolutely have the same goal in mind and both are, I'm sure, equally passionate about the club our views on how the club should move forward are mutually exclusive.

We are both equally convinced 'our way' is the right one. Tom, to paraphrase, because the incremental approach allows for smaller upfront outlay and a reactive build strategy to the clubs needs.

Me because I'm focused more on the way to find increased revenue opportunites so that, when we do finish the facilities upgrade we actually end up making enough extra to pay the bigger salaries and give the manager a transfer pot every now and again.

In short Toms answer is far more deliverable but carries a fair risk of being pointless as it brings little extra in if the supporting development doesnt work. My answer requires finding a lot of money we just dont currently have, but, would offer good potential for bringing in more money over the long term with little risk.

There is no compromise possible between those two positions. The one thing we are in agreement on though is that the current board is far too deer-in-the-headlights to make a good attempt at either option so its all a bit academic.
Tom Hughes
74   Posted 04/11/2011 at 07:51:00

Report abuse

Steve,
It quite clearly states that the stadium can sit within the footprint of the loop site, even with drawings.... and to stretch the outline to its limits they use the biggest comparable example from their extensive portfolio as direct proof i.e. the 60k Emirates, and not a 42-44k stadium at all. HOK now have other smaller footprint stadia of 50k+ capacity that would fit more easily.... as have AFL and other well known stadium architects. As you might expect the outline covers worst case senarios.

Of course there will be need for foundations outside the site.... there is some access bridging incorporated and even some adjoining building work was envisaged...... none of which is particularly Heath Robinson as you try to imply.... and infact similar issues were negotiated at both the examples I gave you ...... Again no show stoppers.... nor steam powered airships.
Steve Jones
75   Posted 04/11/2011 at 12:41:10

Report abuse

I do wonder how you can, in one sentence, state that the stadium fits within the scope of the land parcel available and, in another, state that there will be a need for foundations offsite?.

When I studied the Built Environment we learnt about many types of foundation - pad, strip, slab etc but they always had the common factor that they were directly connected to the building that was resting on them!?. If we are, with this design, spanning the tunnel approach road with some kind of beam support (presumably) the anchoring foundations for that beam would have to be off-site.....so the stadium is clearly NOT fitting within the boundaries of the negotiated site.

The access bridging doesnt really trouble me. The ground works of deep piling and massive substructures adjacent to a sunken, partially encircling, roadway do. Pushing structural supports for the roof onto land that isnt part of the plot being negotiated and overspanning a heavily trafficed multilane roadway likewise.

I agree that its not beyond mankinds wit and ingenuity to solve the problem. I disagree that that specific solution didnt come under the precise heading of 'steam powered airship' for the engineering reasons mentioned. HOK's clearly guarded comments are telling in my view, but, I'm certain you will have a different read.

Anyway I'm happy to leave that one there though Tom to be honest and if you have any links to the new stadium designs you mention or can point me to a publication where I can catch up on the latest designs it would be appreciated.
Tom Hughes
76   Posted 04/11/2011 at 14:29:15

Report abuse

Steve...... the adjacent plots were all part of the package that the city planners were putting together as potential enabling..... with some even further afield if I remember rightly.

As far as the smaller stadium is concerned.... you might want to first check out the new WHL designed for spurs. The large perimeter tracks that have been criticised at the emirates are avoided bringing the tiers much closer to the pitch and altering the tier geometry for greater overlapping, giving a smaller footprint. I know an exercise was also done to place GP and Cologne's stadium on the same plot for comparison and they both fit with plenty spare.... particularly GP of course.

As far as guarded comments are concerned I think there is sufficient clarity and leeway in the choice of stadium... regardless of your concerns about foundation types.... it really is run of the mill in stadium construction terms.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.



© ToffeeWeb