Labour members request city meeting to discuss proposed stadium loan for Everton

We can argue about the capacity all day long but maybe we should be asking why the deal with the council continues to feel like it's stalling ? Anderson has many enemies and I've always felt that the cities politicians are only interested in having one team here, and it's never been blue. Okay that's a bit schoolyard but you will never convince me that Everton FC would have been allowed a decade to dither then cancel a new stadium in Walton, whilst laying waste to a whole area for those ten years. We got a years grace for Kings Dock. One whole year. And yes we were complicit in that failure but this time around I sense there are those who are furious it's Everton and not the RS who are actually in the frame for the iconic city centre(-ish) waterfront location.

The deal has been explained. It's a clever legal and well used approach that brings pretty much risk free financial gain to the people of Liverpool yet there's still this nagging criticism and jealousy around the corridors of council power and it's starting to raise its head in CLP committees. Why? Who is behind the opposition within the Labour Party?

The breathtaking potential of Liverpool (and Wirral) Waters

He will have a stake in both ends of the development – the stadium and the Liver Buildings.

Surely his numbers man, Ryazantsev, will have a Plan C.

I'm a bit wary of blaming the local politics for our stadium woes past and present.

I think they've generally been even-handed, and we have to remember that the last 2 heads of the council have been Evertonian season ticket holders as was the head of planning.

However, I do think that the SPV is probably not the foregone conclusion that has been sold to us. Plus some are questioning the premise that the council can attract a better third party interest rate than our billionaire owner... so perhaps we should be posing those questions too?

To take a wider perspective, I doubt a scheme that is economically good when social care etc is collapsing will be successfully challenged by RS labour folks. And doubt this would happen anyway most see bigger issues at moment.

Also, I think Joe is well liked as a Mayor in crazy times and have not heard one rumour about a local threat to him and his team. Just a desperate Echo who needs to give likes of sad Kemp a minute or two.

All down to business case. Hence my optimism.

Regardless of him being a Blue, he will do what is best for the city.

The issue for me is the margin (the ٤/7m annual income) the Council is applying and the fact that the Council will be borrowing relatively short-term yet the club will be borrowing long-term. That will mean we will be exposed to future interest-rate movements and, whilst the outlook is relatively benign, one can't say that about the whole of the next 25 years. Of course the club can mitigate against future interest-rate movements but that is an added cost.

How does this work in practice? Do the council borrow from the Public Works Loans Board at a fixed rate and then lend on to Everton at an increased fixed rate thereby generating the annual profit for them, or are all rates conditional on the base rate?

The Club will be borrowing off the Council for 25 years, one assumes on a repayment basis. The Club will pay the cost of the Council's borrowing plus a margin of between ٤ & 7 million pa.

This works out at a margin of 4.2% (assuming ٥ million margin to the Council) on the basis the capital amount is gradually paid off (ie, repayment).

If the Council borrows for a shorter time than 25 years the borrowing cost will be lower because short-term rates (as is usual) are currently lower than longer-term rates.

However, the Council will have to refinance each time the short-term loan (say 5 years, for example) expires. If interest rates move, then we would pay the new cost plus the margin of ٤/7 million to the Council.

I spoke at length with Joe about this at the business breakfast a couple of weeks ago.

"Everton FC is requesting comments from supporters, as to where we might acquire financing for our proposed new stadium."

Good luck in L5

We are the first team in this city & always will be.

I Love it

NSNO

And they call us bitter!

Why presume the driving motivation behind this motion is because said politician is a Red?

An even bigger game being played out other than across the red-blue divide is the political one.

I personally think it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable within a democratic society that questions are asked about the financing of a private company project being funded from the public coffers.

If such a transparent public meeting stands up to the challenging questions which will be made, doesn't it strengthen the club's hand, rather than weaken it?

Ego and self-promotion or some other kind of angle to position themselves higher than their peers appears to be the norm.

Liverpool needs investment – what would the impact be if we did get the World Heritage Status removed? What does the city receive for being a World Heritage Site? 10 years after the Capital of Culture, I still don't know what legacy it has left, if any.

From my limited knowledge, this looks to be a similar deal to Finch Farm but on a larger scale. It's an opportunity for the council to actually invest and gain a guaranteed return rather than just selling off land for short term gain.

I understand the Walton CLP being concerned; moving away from Walton will have massive losses to local business who benefit from match-day trade though, no matter what 99% would still vote labour.

As a council tax payer, I want this to be as beneficial to Liverpool as possible. I don't see any positives in trying to block the move. Haven't Spurs done something similar for their new ground? Anderson needs to be as transparent as possible – otherwise, this deal could be scuppered before it starts.

That's the chappie, not a rednose.

Everton FC needs a Plan B for a new stadium

As I've said on previous threads, we are getting massively ahead of ourselves talking about 'legacies' and suchlike. In fact, the club are beginning to resort to their usual MO of getting the hopes up of all our fanbase whilst this scheme is very much in the balance. That's why an iconic 50,000-seater stadium on the waterfront had to viewed as hugely successful leap forward. Yes, it would nice to have a 60,000-seater, but we have to be realistic here.

We must remember, any deal for purchasing the land will be subject to planning permission being granted. My greatest fear is the very real prospect of Joe Anderson no longer being in a position to drive this through.

The CEO may be off shortly, if we don't get a real team of solid, business-minded people on board, this could be another unwanted disaster of epic proportions. Elstone is the only full-time board member. If he says the numbers are 'tight' now, at these low interest rates, then it won't take much to make this scheme unworkable.

We could be left with the redevelopment of Goodison as the only viable option after 20 years of falling behind our peers. Would you trust the current board to deliver?

Ian (#18) - Thanks. I remember hearing about that. That's the same fellow?

I agree with Richard Kemp when he says that Everton should have a Plan B. I might even add that we should have a Plan C, too.

Well, looking at Ian Fisher's #8 interesting link, maybe we have the male version in play with Mr Knights. Be careful who you offend on the way up as it might come back and bite you on the backside! Was Everton inept in its handling of Mr Knights those 6 or so years ago?

Shouldn't investors be queuing up?

There was always going to be opposition, so wouldn't removing government bodies be the most practical way forward.

I stand to be corrected on any and every part of my interpretation but bear in mind that Kenwright had at the time massively immersed the club in financial arrangements dependent on the support of the bloke he described at the time as "The Mozart of Money", "Sir" Phillip Green, now vilified far and wide as having been and being as morally odious a creature as it's humanly possible to be.

Wonder what the truth was/is, and what bearing it may be having on various very important parties whose decisions on where our stadium may now end up being are very very important to us all, where using, and reliably repaying, public monies lies at the heart of our future? Do they know, or believe they know, more than the public at large, including us?

Answers on a postcard please Bill.

If one wanted a loan for 𧷐M and had a guaranteed income of 𧴜M per annum, would one get a loan? – No problem.

But, if one is not prepared to give up that guaranteed income, if one want's to have one's cake and eat it, that is, keep the guaranteed income oneself and get the taxpayer to take all the risk and provide the collateral, how soft one is!

The reason a private loan was not forthcoming was simply this. Financial organisations would insist on a good portion of the guaranteed annual income. But why part with any of one's golden eggs when one's friend thinks he can get the local taxpayer to allow you to keep it all. A win-win situation for Mr Moshri and Mr Kenwright. It's called having one's cake and eating it.

Like every other EFC supporter, I desperately want to see Bramley-Moore Dock come to fruition but it's just beginning to dawn on me that it might not happen. I will get onto my knees and I pray I am wrong.

Living away from the city these days I took the view that Moshiri will make this happen without my really thinking through the obstacles. This despite reading every article and post on the subject, despite the occasional post usually from the most pessimistic of TW members, any problems seemed to me to be par for the course which would eventually be completed.

Now I have read the Richard Kemp report, kindly (or unkindly!) posted by Kevin, it seems to me that EFC needs a Plan B and another dream down the pipe.

Anyway, I am going outside to get some sunshine and a dose of optimism to bring me back to life!

When Peel Holdings, the council, big business and a billionaire want something to happen, it will.

Newham – Sir Robin Wales after 23 years... tara, Rob! They are also causing mayhem in Haringey.

They are strong in the city already and could be another factor to consider. It could be influenced by Red Reds!

There are scare tactics regarding Momentum being used by frightened Labour politicians in Liverpool and by their opponents (who are making comparisons with the old Militant lot); Richard Kemp, oddly enough, is one of the latter.

All that is happening in Liverpool is that the present Liverpool Labour leaders who are basically Tories and have nothing in common with the National Labour party, which is Socialist, are being challenged. I don't suppose this will go down well on ToffeeWeb (a top site) but it is true. How can a Socialist party subsidise a Billionaire and Millionaire (again) when Austerity has and still is hurting the ordinary Citizens - it would be rank hypocrisy.

In the end, it will be decided under usual scrutiny of a plan like this and it's legality and business strength is what will see it sink or swim. If it stacks up and is legal, Joe has the power for it to go through The rest is good political fantasy fun but just that.

Honestly, next you will be telling me the Brexit referendum was influenced by data manipulation and that the NHS won't actually get 𧸖m pw. I mean to say...

All I can say is that in Newham is that all decisions/ rulings made recently are being reviewed. If they do not fit the new direction of the council, well several options have been discussed. Make of that what you want...

Labour hold 80 seats; Liberals 4.

It would have to be a revolution from the brothers in arms for it to be voted down.

What really matters (and should matter) though is that a proposal that involves the council borrowing 𧷐m should be dealt with by council processes and scrutiny, be subject to their due diligence, and authorised (or not) transparently. Anything else is irrelevant, surely?

You say in the end it will be decided under the usual scrutiny etc. This is the heart of the problem up until now all these schemes including Finch Farm, have had no scrutiny - The Mayor instigates a scheme, works behind the scenes to make it happen, lets it be known he is all in favour of it, in fact, it is his baby, just like Bramley-Moore Dock.

Then it is put to the ten strong Mayors Cabinet consisting of the Mayor the Deputy Mayor, an ex Deputy Mayor and seven other close associates. The deals of course are then voted through. All fair... I don't think!

This is why labour Councillors, many labour supporters and the few opposition Councillors are speaking out – They suspect this is the mayor's plan for the loan – a ten-strong decision.

If it is viable, if will come out of these meetings and make the whole project more solid. If it isn't, we'll know early enough and be able to move to an alternative – if there is one!

My optimism suggests this has been thought out.

If it doesn't, then as folk have limited social care etc, then, despite my love for EFC, it shouldn't happen.

And I so dream of this happening.

He is using the Bramley-Moore Dock issue in a desperate attempt to keep himself in the news.

The expected cost of the Stadium was originally 𧷤m, I believe; if it was more it won't make much difference to the point I am making.

Mr Elstone was quoted after a meeting along the lines of we are confident that the Council will give us the loan and then he said the building costs have skyrocketed to 𧹺m or even 𧺬m. He was confident before anyone in the city including most Councillors even knew about it – several days later the Mayor announces this very plan will be carried out. Telling private concerns before the City Council is no way to conduct Council business, this template has been followed time and again.

Here is my point: If the proposed building costs were artificially raised, then it would make the 𧷐m loan look better – certainly better than say a 𧷐m loan out of 𧸖m total cost because anyone can see EFC would need to find only a relatively small amount. The higher cost projection from EFC came at a very convenient time.

If that was not enough The Mayor, EFC and Peel jumped the gun and did a deal on the land (a huge mistake), thus making it even more difficult to justify spending public money on building a stadium on private land leased by a private company to then be handed over to the said private company – this was the end of any chance of public money. They were just too clever or thought they were. Liverpool would still have got the games if the Dock Stadium was not included but Joe would have none of it, half a million pounds of public money wasted.

The Mayor had also succeeded in getting right up the noses of those involved by trying to railroad them into his Dock scheme. Birmingham were no hopers for the games and did not care too much, so it took a special talent to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

The area is in need of regeneration itself.

How well do you know the area surrounding the Bramley-Moore Dock?

So maybe we should just leave the dilapidated area selected for a fabulous new stadium to the rats that currently reside there in their multitudes to placate a political rat who is trying to do us down in the service of the city he claims to represent.