Liverpool Mayor, Joe Anderson, has revealed an alternative funding scenario for Everton's proposed stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock whereby Liverpool City Council could build the ground and lease it back to the club.
Both Everton and LCC are discussing ways in which the club can raise the estimated £500m cost of the stadium on the banks of the Mersey, with the leading proposal being that the City take out a £280m loan at ultra-low interest rates that is then repaid by the club over a period of 25 years.
Under that scheme, the ground and the club would act as security with the Council netting £7m a year in interest payments it otherwise wouldn't receive if the Blues went entirely their own way. Everton would still need to raise the remaining £220m privately.
Under the Mayor's alternate proposal, he told Liverpool Business News that LCC could fund the new stadium entirely if the club were unable to raise their share of the cost via private investment.
"There is an open door to the possibility — it is not ruled out,” said Mayor Andserson.
“Everton want to own their own stadium and they are still confident they can raise the money that would allow them to do that."
Anderson explained that, “there would have to be a completely different securitisation package to go along with that,” under the terms of this different arrangement and it could mean less leverage for Everton where the design, capacity, use and revenue from the Bramley-Moore Dock stadium are concerned.
The original proposal has had its share of critics, with some opponents fearful of risk to City taxpayers even though the terms of the project would put all of the risk on Everton. This Plan B option would involve significantly more capital and risk on LCC's side.
Anderson has given assurances of full transparency in the process and that a vote of the full council would be taken before any agreement is signed.
Quotes sourced from Liverpool Business News
Reader Comments (241)
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
1 Posted 09/04/2018 at 00:40:22
In itself, it was always open to politicization and peddling of misleading interpretations, not least in a city of two teams where it will invariably be unpalatable to the other side on an emotional level.
With the club making no real effort to control the narrative on the progress toward a stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, this announcement will also likely stoke more doubt than hope amongst Blues. If Everton were making real strides in securing their half of the amount, surely mention of a Plan B in this form would be withheld as destabilizing.
Following the Meis meetings, it seems that folks were on-the-whole feeling as though this was increasingly likely to actually happen. I've got to say, this had dampened my mood on the subject.
2 Posted 09/04/2018 at 00:49:26
I don't think the club want this move. For whatever reason, EFC are dragging their heels making excuses and lying to the fans... Basically, Joe Anderson knows we are not putting in our share of the money so he is putting the club on the spot here.
It's Kings Dock all over again. Bramley-Moore will never happen if the Muppets who run Everton FC have their way. It's disgraceful. We appear to be as far away from the Dock Road as we are from the other collapsed stadium moves.
Start waking up, people none of what the club is doing here makes any sense. Why can't Moshiri give the council our share of the money and claim it back later?? It's basically one year's Sky money, FFS... Moshiri is a billionaire, we are told, he must surely be able to raise a poxy £280M.
Absolute joke but I won't say I told you so.
3 Posted 09/04/2018 at 00:52:09
Plan B doesn't sound very realistic when the council will already have to spend money improving the infrastructure in the surrounding area.
4 Posted 09/04/2018 at 00:53:33
I can also well imagine what the majority or the city electorate will make of this idea given the way most of them are still being screwed by way of council tax as services perish to their personal cost whenever they may be in need.
5 Posted 09/04/2018 at 01:01:16
But if not like.."
Oh yeah, this is going to go down like a French kiss at a family reunion.
Can NO fucker these days keep their bleeding trap shut until they absolutely NEED to speak?
I'd love to play poker with Joe, give him an Ace and he get up and dance on the table.
6 Posted 09/04/2018 at 02:33:54
Presumably Plan B will benefit them even more. But is it worth it to the Club if we don't own the stadium?
I can feel a redevelopment of Goodison coming.
7 Posted 09/04/2018 at 03:35:07
If you're Joe Anderson, and have invested a fair bit of your personal collateral in the project moving forward for a variety of benefits all round, you are going to want to assure people that it is "future-proofed" (is that the term?) against this obvious prospect of failure.
As we all know, this was exactly the scenario that ultimately killed Kings Dock. So Joe is providing a pathway for moving forward through a repeat of Kings Dock by EFC. Of course, for Tony Marsh and his plethora of conspiracy theories, this means it can only be Kings Dock all over again!
Kinda strange that Tony accuses the club of lying, when they've actually said very little, or in fact, er... nothing. What lies are they telling us, Tony? Please explain. Maybe we actually beat Liverpool at the weekend? And how does this "put the club on the spot"? Doesn't it actually get them right off the spot? It gives them the best of all insurance policies or get-out clauses for the club not coming through with their share.
To a certain extent, it's conjecture until the council actually reviews and decides on Plan A – the £280M loan – invest to earn. To my limited knowledge, this still needs a few key entities to buy off on it – not least, the council. Until that's either accepted or rejected, nothing is certain. That's what makes Tony's definitive rants so ridiculous to even bother reading.
Look at this utter nonsense: "none of what the club is doing here makes any sense" really? So we don't need a new stadium? Goodison Park is just fine? We shouldn't bother employing a highly renowned and clearly jazzed international architect to get deep into the very essence of this???
Yes, it's all a pack of lies, Tony. You are becoming more ridiculous in each post. Keep 'em coming!!!
8 Posted 09/04/2018 at 04:21:19
10 Posted 09/04/2018 at 06:49:04
How and why did the stadium costs jump from approx £250 to £500m? (Meis has designed an equally complex 52k capacity stadium for Roma for less than £250m.) This is a substantial increase, and an expensive estimate if the capacity is just 50k, and there is no sliding roof etc. This figure sprung out of nowhere when perhaps tellingly the Commonwealth Games bid was lost... therefore, was this project simply motivated by, and entirely dependent on financial incentives connected to that?
We have no assurances that the council will even accept the current proposals, with some protagonists claiming that the independent report on the SPV was far more cautious regarding estimates of risk etc than we are led to believe. If that's the case, what chance has Plan B?
At the same time, the Heritage watchdogs are hovering over the whole project, awaiting the proposals to assess implications to our World Heritage Site status, and other impacts on the historic fabric.
So, there are so many unknowns and potential outside influences that can affect this whole project, and the club have only just undertaken a public consultation to help firm up a design brief, 2 years after engaging the architect?
How much would it cost for a small land grab at Goodison Park, replacing the Upper Bullens, adding say 5-7k capacity on that side, and turning the Park End into the "Blue-wall" concept? I'd bet a pound to a pinch of salt that it would be a tiny fraction of £500m.
11 Posted 09/04/2018 at 07:14:38
Tony M, take a break from it all mate, think about it? You was even agreeing with your kopite mate, that Saturday's derby, was just a hindrance to Liverpool, which just shows me how much of a downer you have got on Everton FC right now.
12 Posted 09/04/2018 at 07:28:37
13 Posted 09/04/2018 at 07:37:23
It sounds to me like he is putting some pressure on our hierarchy to hasten the process. Now Premier League survival has been achieved for another season, perhaps we can expect some progress.
14 Posted 09/04/2018 at 07:47:34
15 Posted 09/04/2018 at 08:01:29
I can't see this Bramley-Moore thing coming off, this is Everton!
16 Posted 09/04/2018 at 08:31:00
The greatest thing Everton, have ever had is a very, very loyal fanbase but if indeed this ground doesn't happen, then anger will be replaced by real apathy, and it will be the beginning of the end for our club.
I know some people think the beginning of the end started the day Kenwright became a major shareholder, but the fans have stayed onside despite the club just treading water. If this ground fails, I can't see that happening for long.
17 Posted 09/04/2018 at 08:35:26
Logic would argue spending that much money would make it harder to spend more money. If we had spent zero money on new players, then you might actually have a point.
18 Posted 09/04/2018 at 08:49:40
19 Posted 09/04/2018 at 08:51:45
Eventually in the next 10 years we may find out the truth. Until then, fingers crossed for a state-of-the-art super stadium near or on the waterfront.
Until then, it's the players and manager I'm concerned with. Some may argue it's exciting times; I view it as more of the same.. Living in hope.
It starts with getting Mancini in. NSNO
20 Posted 09/04/2018 at 09:06:39
What both sides want is unpalatable to both.
Without the Commonwealth Games bonus money, Mr Moshiri is fishing around for the best public money assistance possible.
It's a good thing on one level, he's trying to get the best deal based on what some other clubs have got. Problem is it is unlikely he will get it and it will drag on and on.
It will end up being a simple case of whether Mr Moshiri will stump up the required amount himself as an investment. Or would he rather pull the plug?
21 Posted 09/04/2018 at 09:21:10
"People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs."
Otherwise known as Tony Marsh Syndrome.
22 Posted 09/04/2018 at 09:36:49
By spending these figures on shite players, it proves to me the club can source funds but, for some reason, on the proposed stadium build it is refusing to play ball. I don't think they want this move. They are running scared of the enormity of it. Why else drag their heels and churn out all this shit to the extent it has spooked their number one sponsor, Joe Anderson?
Micheal Kenrick, The fact that the club says we are now skint but can find huge amounts of money for awful players and huge amounts for Wayne Rooney's ridiculous salary is that not being deceitful??
The club promised the Shareholders committee chairman John Blaine that Dan Mies would be at the most recent AGM with stadium plans to present. The final print if you like... It didn't happen. Dan wasn't there and was never in place to be there. In my book, that's lying. Ask John if that's nonsense or not or just watch his interview on Toffee TV.
Remember the ring-fenced statement back in the day? Well, Moshiri said over a year ago now that he was building the fans a First Class stadium we can be proud of!! Now, he and the club are skint!!! Yet the same Moshiri and his cronies buy the Liver Building last year. Why not use this money for the stadium? What did we need most? A new stadium or a building on the Pier Head? Is this not misleading or lying?
They are all full off it, mate Kenwright, Moshiri, Elstone all reading from the same hymn sheet. You trust them if you must but more and more fans are starting to wake up to it. Some are just giving up and some are just laughing... That's not nonsense, it's fact.
23 Posted 09/04/2018 at 09:58:24
Any opinion held or decision ever made could be loosely accused of basis in such "Bias". A pseudo-intellectual form of "Conspiracy theorist", so no wonder it's heard so frequently nowadays.
24 Posted 09/04/2018 at 10:05:54
By your method of thinking, is Cognitive Dissonance then know as the Steve Brown syndrome?
25 Posted 09/04/2018 at 10:06:41
Not a chance, it'd be another shrug of the shoulders and "Oh well, we tried." After all, kick a man so many times when he's down and he 'll find it that bit harder to get back up.
26 Posted 09/04/2018 at 10:27:02
Does the council stand to make such impressive returns and/or is the regeneration of Bramley-Moore that important to the council?
I would like to think there is highly persuasive logic behind Joe Anderson's stance and not just some soft-headed love for Everton, as otherwise he may create serious opposition suspicious of his personal motives.
27 Posted 09/04/2018 at 10:45:58
28 Posted 09/04/2018 at 11:21:37
Laurie Hartley showed us what happened to Melbourne docks, once a similar scheme got started there, and if this can happen in our own city, then only London will be able to offer more to the visitor imo. It will benefit the city of Liverpool massively, and also bring us forward years, and back towards the forefront of England once again.
29 Posted 09/04/2018 at 11:26:53
30 Posted 09/04/2018 at 11:40:36
31 Posted 09/04/2018 at 12:01:15
"You've let me spend £300 on a season ticket, and £500 on golf clubs, and £500 on golf club fees, and £200 on gym subs; so why can't we find another £500 to...
"Ouch, okay I understand, let go!"
32 Posted 09/04/2018 at 12:05:22
33 Posted 09/04/2018 at 12:15:13
34 Posted 09/04/2018 at 12:36:32
35 Posted 09/04/2018 at 13:17:41
I would like to think that is a more plausible rationale than this being a financial exercise.
The council does not exist to make money. It is there to oversee the running of the city and to make improvements. So they make a better return from providing the cash, so what? That is surely a secondary benefit of the whole program.
This has to boil down to the regeneration being a vote winner in the council and amongst the council tax payers, I assume?
If that is the case, if I was Moshiri, I would be rubbing my hands with Glee.
I would say to myself well, let me give appearances that I will do my utmost to put some money in, and perhaps I can put this club into a brand spanking new stadium, hopefully on lease terms which are favourable for the club, and hey presto! I don't have to invest the cash for the stadium and my shares look like good value. The statement by Elstone put a marker down on the difficulty of raising cash.
I would say well, old Joe is going to fight the good fight as this is a vote winner for him. Why stick more of my cash in?
Then again, I am a cynical bugger. Perhaps Moshiri does love throwing his money around.
36 Posted 09/04/2018 at 13:46:14
The council has to make money from somewhere other than hiking council tax on its population, there are also limits on that avenue of raising money and due to the cuts of the last decade and more to come in the future, Joe or any Mayor of any city has to try and make up those shortfalls somehow. That's why he is pushing the stadium deal so hard, so often.
Everton Football Club, as others have mentioned, are not leading the narrative on this project, they have let Joe and Dan Meis do the talking. Which does beg the question as to why that should be the case.
Whatever way we look at it and wherever the money eventually comes from, this is a project that cannot be allowed to fail, but it is also a project that will have profound outcomes for the city and the club, be they negative or positive outcomes.
37 Posted 09/04/2018 at 13:52:42
Yes, Joe can certainly become a vote winner by saying "look, I am making money from a source that is not council tax, and I will deliver improvements in your roads as a result". So he uses Everton to build better roads. Great.
It does not change the fact that a statement by Anderson where he outlines the possibility of the council fully funding the project gives Everton and its owners a way out of providing their own money.
I am not entirely sure that is a good thing for the council, as they are trading more risk for more return.
All of Anderson's plans assume Everton will pay back the money. What happens, heaven forbid, if we default?
There isn't a tenant ready to replace us to play football in the stadium is there?
Why does he not borrow the money and build housing or offices, and use the rentals to repay his debt, and the excess to invest in the rest of the city? If an individual tenant defaults, another can step in.
Seems like a slightly risky way of going about things is it not, especially if all of the money is being put up by the council?
38 Posted 09/04/2018 at 14:00:10
They can't even sell houses for a pound without the government blocking them.
If we can't find our share of the money the deal is dead. Beep, beep, beep as the wagon reverses out of Bramley-Moore Dock.
Standby for Operation Redevelopment Goodison Exercise.
We have seen so many false dawns, lines in the sand, watershed moments etc etc. Can we blame Bill Kenwright for this?
I am still pissed off after not beating that shower's reserve team.
39 Posted 09/04/2018 at 14:20:22
40 Posted 09/04/2018 at 14:45:43
41 Posted 09/04/2018 at 15:18:11
The failed LibDem Richard Kemp only opposes Plan A in a desperate attempt to get Kopite votes on May 3rd. If the Labour council was opposing Plan A, then Kemp would be for it. The only principles he has are those that enable him cling to his council seat.
Having said that, I wouldn't be adverse to a redevelopment of Goodison Park. The immediate, and relatively easy, quick fix would be the Park End and, in the long term, the pitch being turned around and the Main Stand becoming the goal stand.
42 Posted 09/04/2018 at 15:20:58
No, it clearly does not mean that at all. Its simply a man talking about a city project and opening his mouth about additional contingency plans, or in other words, “planning”.
43 Posted 09/04/2018 at 15:27:19
44 Posted 09/04/2018 at 15:31:55
Don (#4), have you still not got it? This has zero to do with football, EFC and fans... it's about land, property and return on investment (ROI). And you know what, I don't care – I'm glad there is someone from outside this city about to invest in something that resembles Albert Dock pre mid-1980s.
Tom (#10) seriously, you think a fraction... we need 4 sides of the ground having major rebuilding undertaken to make Goodison Park work. Have a look across the park... a fraction!!!? This club needs to be dragged kicking and screaming from its own fans to make progress. We need to move on.
This is an incredible opportunity for the City – borrowing government funds is a no-brainer; the sooner the better for all concerned.
45 Posted 09/04/2018 at 15:38:20
I can. Schneiderlin and bricks and mortar. They both move at roughly the same pace.
46 Posted 09/04/2018 at 15:48:02
The houses around Goodison Park are literally the cheapest around any UK stadium. Just a relative handful on the Bullens side would yield enough space to build a whole new Upper Bullens preserving and reprofilling the lower tier. This would be cheaper than Anfield's extension as the lower tier is shallower.
Extending the Park End as a large single tier could probably be done at less than £3k per seat too. Re-roof ing the Main Stand and the Gwladys Street end even if you went for top of the range fit-out it would be a fraction of £500m which is why LFC did it.
47 Posted 09/04/2018 at 15:53:03
It's not council taxpayers money and will have absolutely no effect on current council spending. The future interest payments will be a bonus to City funds so will benefit council tax payers.
48 Posted 09/04/2018 at 16:02:06
Why do you continue to lie? Honestly. The club has not said any of what you are claiming. They did not say they're skint. They did not say they don't have the money. The Mayor did not say the club said they don't have the money.
Stop the lies!
49 Posted 09/04/2018 at 16:34:34
Taking a massive new riverside stadium out of consideration allows some credibility to your contention, "This has zero to do with football, EFC and fans, its about land, property and return on investment (ROI)". Unfortunately the "ROI" element is clearly linked to, erm, EFC and, erm, their fans being in league (no pun intended) to repay, which as a member of the Premier League is presumably feasible whilst TV money pours in.
Neither the club nor the council having any input on that vital element. Therefore, if TV revenues diminish, which doesn't look likely admittedly but can't be guaranteed, and/or if EFC fail to maintain Premier League status, and/or fans therefore stop paying sufficient/any money, the council still have a massive debt to service "courtesy" of a Tory government loan.
Or have I missed something?
50 Posted 09/04/2018 at 16:43:50
51 Posted 09/04/2018 at 16:44:18
52 Posted 09/04/2018 at 17:03:08
For the council, its actually more beneficial for them to fund the whole project as they can make more money from it in the long run.
53 Posted 09/04/2018 at 17:05:57
54 Posted 09/04/2018 at 17:06:28
Those contingencies (EFC being unable to make the repayments) will be covered by an insurance policy, as is normal in any businesses transaction of this sort.
55 Posted 09/04/2018 at 17:07:26
56 Posted 09/04/2018 at 17:08:25
57 Posted 09/04/2018 at 17:20:50
This is a lot better than reading your confirmation bias. He 'expected' stadium images and Dan Meis; he clearly understands exactly why that didn't happen:
"The club's really cautious because of what's happened in the past... There's guys on the Board who are scarred by multiple failures... Let's not tell anybody anything until it's nailed down, versus let's tell everybody everything as soon as there's a glimmer of an opportunity."
Do us all a favour, print that out and stick it up on your PC monitor. There's a good lad.
58 Posted 09/04/2018 at 17:22:30
59 Posted 09/04/2018 at 17:25:24
At what point does conformation bias simply become lies, when its repeated over and over again despite having it pointed out over and over again that what is claimed was in no way ever said? And what exactly do these continued false claims add to the discussion?
60 Posted 09/04/2018 at 17:40:55
We have had the architect having meeting with fans to listen to their ideas and we have been shown some basic preliminary drawings. Now we are being told again by the mayor not Everton, that if they cant come up with roughly £220 million, then the City Council will fund the whole £500 million stadium. I think you may struggle to get this through council Joe and then what happens.
61 Posted 09/04/2018 at 18:48:08
With Elstone's remarks about the funding going to be difficult (or some such words) and Mr Anderson's statement, one can only read between the lines and come with up 2+2=4 (or is it 5?).
Of all the excellent posts (some not so excellent), Brian Harrison (60), says it all in his very last sentence because that to me is the million dollar question (or is that 200m dollar question?).
63 Posted 09/04/2018 at 19:05:00
There may be a chance to borrow £500m at 1% and lend that at 2%. Seems to me that if the borrower's have security, I would make more on the £500m. So some guy underwrites the borrowers and that makes it even better.
In principle, is this the essence of what we are talking about?
64 Posted 09/04/2018 at 19:08:46
To a neutral with no connection to the City, would it not appear that this whole situation is a lost cause? I know people who are clued up who simply laugh at us these days. I myself refuse to talk about this proposed stadium move in the presence of Liverpool supporters as it is now embarrassing.
Why aren't we all together rejoicing and celebrating this amazing new ground being built for us by the club? Why is Bramley-Moore Dock not a happy thing we can talk about and be assured it is happening that unites us all?? Why all the doubt and the apathy from club and fans alike?? Seriously, guys, it doesn't look good, does it?
Come on, people, how many more fan love-ins and surveys do we need? How many more times does Big Joe have to go and fight our corner while the club's people cowered away from the spotlight? Where are Moshiri TalkSport phone-ins now? Where are the Kenwright interviews on Granada Reports when we need one? Where are they hiding?
I am not making anything up or telling lies, David, I am calling it as I see it. Not getting fooled by bullshit and judging this board on past history. Don't forget, this is the third time in 20 years we have been here. Is that lies also? When you see wrecking balls and cement mixers down the Dock Road, give me a shout, guys. I will buy you all a pint in the one pub left along there... The Bramley-Moore.
65 Posted 09/04/2018 at 19:16:18
What is the timeframe for this in terms of the club saying they have definitely found the investment needed?
66 Posted 09/04/2018 at 19:32:46
67 Posted 09/04/2018 at 19:42:59
There's an easy option and a hard option. The easy option is not having to fund the stadium but paying increased rent – probably a bit like the Finch Farm deal. The second option is also a long term option. Funding the stadium, or part funding it ourselves, but knowing that we also need to spend money to remain competitive in the Premier League.
I suppose it depends on whether Moshiri is here for the long term.
68 Posted 09/04/2018 at 19:45:38
Under those circumstances, just how does Mr Moshiri think the Kenwright cabal contribute to his ambitions?
69 Posted 09/04/2018 at 19:54:13
70 Posted 09/04/2018 at 19:55:24
Who said the costs had risen to £500m? That's right, Betty's lad. More alarm bells. Joe Anderson seems to be driving this scheme more than the club who will shoulder the debt. It's certainly a bizarre set-up we are currently witnessing. People are right to ask about a statement from the club and the board. They have the numbers, and it would be crystal clear as to whether they stack up or not.
I would be a lot more convinced if Moshiri had said that the project would proceed either with or without LCC acting as broker. There are clearly still some lingering doubts at board level. Elstone is said to be leaving – does nobody find that strange in the middle of such a critical project?
71 Posted 09/04/2018 at 20:03:01
72 Posted 09/04/2018 at 20:12:20
73 Posted 09/04/2018 at 20:15:20
Get rid of Bill, and Woods, as I believe we would have been in Kings Dock, if they hadn't done the dirt on the main man Paul Gregg.
74 Posted 09/04/2018 at 20:34:14
We are all frustrated, Tony, and I've a feeling it will get worse after 10 pm tomorrow night. Kings Dock failing was a shocker, along with the whole Sheikh Mansour scenario. But that's Everton for ya!
75 Posted 09/04/2018 at 20:57:59
I really think Moshiri should step up to the mark and commit. He must have a limit financially that he is okay to go to; he will have a back-up plan if he is half the accountant we think he is... and therefore there is no reason if all other obstacles are cleared, why he cannot publically say it's going to happen (subject to planning permission).
I understand Tony's feelings, but I am not at the point where I don't believe it will happen. I hope it will because (as the RS found out) we could end up staying at Goodison Park and frankly we will struggle to fill it as a result of the appalling mismanagement of this once great club.
76 Posted 09/04/2018 at 21:07:21
How about Plan C: we stump up what we can afford, such as £100-150 million, and the council lend us the rest.
It's more or less placing a deposit down on a large mortgage that we pay off over 25 years. It will still be our stadium. I don't like the idea of the council owning it outright.
77 Posted 09/04/2018 at 21:23:47
78 Posted 09/04/2018 at 21:24:15
Last 4 seasons we have been dire and our average attendance has been 97% of capacity:
98.1% so far
That includes the fact that a lot of away teams don't sell out their allocations.
Basically, no matter what the dross served up is, we carry on coming and filling the ground to capacity. No wonder Bill Kenwright is laughing all the way to the bank.
79 Posted 09/04/2018 at 21:44:36
Why the fuck do we all bother wasting so much time on our beloved club when we are taken for granted every day?
80 Posted 09/04/2018 at 21:45:39
81 Posted 09/04/2018 at 22:42:01
One thing is certain: Everton Football Club is in desperate need of a completely new identity and a clear-out of those who have brought the club to its knees and consigned us to a pathetic laughing-stock over years of mismanagement and disgrace as we stumble from one crisis to another, without any apparent attempt to come to terms with the bleeding obvious, that we are looking at a future of more of the same unless a miracle happens.
I have said from Day One that Bramley-Moore Dock will become another pipe-dream with cost over-runs and construction costs in the millions already in motion and, as usual, a deafening silence from 'above'.
82 Posted 09/04/2018 at 22:45:18
No doubt his mate, Jim White at Sky, will also be wheeled out as well to appease the masses, tapping his ear piece while he has an imaginary chat with his buddy Farhad.
I think Anderson's comments have either killed this scheme stone dead as the shit storm that would follow the council standing up for half a billion would kill it any way. Or is it to flush out the bean counters at Everton?
Or maybe Moshiri knows he can get his mitts on cheap council money without putting in a shekel himself?
83 Posted 09/04/2018 at 00:09:49
84 Posted 10/04/2018 at 00:40:32
This board have spent nothing on redevelopment and gotten away with it cos there was always a new set of plans on the boardroom desk. Although he's obviously brewstered, Moshiri doesn't fill me with confidence... probably due to some odd statements over the last few years. I think we're all scarred so the sooner the club can come out with something definite, the better. I wouldn't be shocked if it never happens.
85 Posted 10/04/2018 at 00:42:54
But the first question I'm asking is a bit like Amit @26:
My why is a bit different .....
Why in the world are you even broaching the subject unless something on Everton's end isn't panning out?
Why bring this up? Does Liverpool City Council have to finance this because Everton can't? What is LCC's motive to do so?
Why is this guy even mentioning any of this?
Honestly, I feel terrible for "the lifers". You cradle born Evertonians have seen the false dawns too many damn times. If this fucker falls through, or if Liverpool City Council actually owns the new stadium because we can't find the freakin' money to do so ourselves?
Sometimes I wonder if all of you are flaming alcoholics - because Everton certainly can drive you to drink.
Cheers. Pun intended.
86 Posted 10/04/2018 at 01:38:15
I'd be speculating, but my guess is because nobody ever thought of doing it before. Firstly, there's using public money for a private project... is that even legal? Surely the Public Works Loan Board [Est. 1793!!!] must have rules and restrictions relating to how its money can be used... and for what. It must be intended for funding Public Works, after all — doh! It's in the name!
But if it was something as simple as that which will halt this 'creative' funding mechanism, I kinda think Joe's team would've sussed it by now. Or Richard Kemp would have played it as his trump card.
Secondly, maybe there is reassurance in this, Item §5 of Circular 158 on their General Policy for making loans. (Tony's gonna have a field day with the first part!)
The Board expects an authority undertaking financial transactions to act prudently and legally. The Board will not lend to an authority which has chosen to act unlawfully, and is required before making a loan to be satisfied that there is sufficient security for its repayment. In dealing with applications the Board's officers will ask the local authority for assurances that the authority is acting properly and according to statute. The Board will rely on the answers to these questions. The Board will not refuse an application if satisfied that it conforms to its lending arrangements. To that extent, the Board can be relied on as lender of last resort.
But perhaps the real key here is is the trust the PWLB will exercise in the borrowing authority... and that they themselves say the Board can be relied on as lender of last resort. And (admittedly after only a cursory review of their website) nowhere can I find any restrictions or stipulations regarding what the loaned monies can be used for.
87 Posted 10/04/2018 at 02:09:21
It's all about down payment sums.
But why in the world would:
1. Liverpool City Council want the exposure of £500 million on the books???!!!!
2. Everton Football Club want to not OWN their own stadium, which they certainly will not do if they allow LCC to stump up £500M to get this done?
None of this is good reading. It, to me at least, falls into the Tony Marsh camp - I smell the distinct waft of bullshit in the air.
Here's the thing regarding my opinion on the matter - I'm not a life-long, scorned Blue. I've not lived through the aforementioned false dawns.
There's something stinky about the introduction of the "Plan B" by "Shifty Council Dude". Again, WHY? Why bring this up??? If we had the necessary funds to enter into a partnership with LCC, this wouldn't be spoken about.
...and is required before making a loan to be satisfied that there is sufficient security for its repayment.
If we can't find the downpayment for the financing, how in the holy fuck can LCC "be satisfied that there is sufficient security for its repayment"??
What security do we have if we can't even find the down-money? Seriously?
I'm with Tony, this stinks to me. Hope I'm wrong.
88 Posted 10/04/2018 at 04:05:35
Yes, yes there is. And they have a history of using our old grounds.
89 Posted 10/04/2018 at 05:32:43
90 Posted 10/04/2018 at 06:09:46
Those contingencies (EFC being unable to make the repayments) will be covered by an insurance policy, as is normal in any businesses transaction of this sort."
No it is not normal to insure loan repayments for such a large loan. This is not like mortgage insurance, which pays out on ill health or job loss. This is insurance on a company not meeting its liabilities, which requires a complex credit assessment.
Hence, it requires a specialist form of insurance, known as a credit default swap. This is costly. If the council pays for it, it eats into the profits they make from the borrow to lend approach.
If EFC pays for it, it increases the overall cost of the loan.
Furthermore, financial institutions are very wary of providing derivatives to councils - as in the past such transactions were ruled ultra vires to the council's charter.
In some cases, the insurance providers have themselves defaulted this is what caused the meltdown in 2008 when many lenders who had taken out a load of CDS were found to be worthless as the financial institutions who had written these (stand up the world's largest insurer, AIG) couldn't pay.
If I was a council tax payer in the city with no interest in football, this approach by Joe Anderson to take all of the funding over would bother me.
His roads would only be built as long as EFC kept going with the repayments. £500M seems like an awfully high number of eggs to be put in the 1 repayment basket.
91 Posted 10/04/2018 at 06:41:26
This is a humongous project, the area is one of the most run-down in the UK living in the Boundary Street area, I know this to be true. I only need to take a short walk before I'm counting the rats.
The main players have withdrawn from the stage, leaving uncle Joe to repeatedly put his credibility on the line... These are, or at least should be, genuine concerns.
I do see this stadium project as a real one... but discount the sceptics at your peril. We have previous... we have lots of previous.
92 Posted 10/04/2018 at 08:56:56
As I understood Joe Anderson's original statement, it would be EFC who took out the insurance and insurance is similar to betting. The insurance companies 'lay off' liabilities to other companies to spread the risk.
The road infrastructure has nothing to do with the proposed stadium or any loans. It's separate money and will happen if a stadium is built, or not.
93 Posted 10/04/2018 at 09:05:34
I suspect that this deal could be made or broken on the question of just how much it will cost to put in the roads and rail links. Could this be why the proposed development seems to have increased in cost?
I think Tony marsh may be on to something here. If the club are getting cold feet at the size of the costs, then Anderson could be looking for ways to keep them on board but they could equally be looking for time to raise the cash and would look silly after the promises made.
Perhaps it will take 5 years of saving TV money to get this done. This club are experts in stringing the fans along and this could be the beginning of a long, drawn-out saga.
The drain on income from the high wages and severance payments to our players and coaches soon bite into that TV dosh. Perhaps we simply don't have the cash.
94 Posted 10/04/2018 at 09:22:47
95 Posted 10/04/2018 at 09:42:38
Given the time-honoured history of delay and massive overspend that accompanies any British building project that involves a budget more than a fiver, I do think that caution is the watchword. I would also question our divine right to remain in the Premier League - what happens to revenue streams if we ever dropped a division?
In the event of the Premier League money fountain drying up, Joe and EFC would be going to hell in a royal blue and white handcart. After the Kings Dock and Tesco Terry debacles, why the focus hasn't been on re-imagining Goodison Park on a massive scale is beyond me.
96 Posted 10/04/2018 at 09:52:30
Liverpool Council, like most other local authorities, is financially on the bones of its arse. Yet, at a click of the Mayor's finger, the government who are in a similar financial plight, have apparently agreed to lend the Council £280 million, which will then be lent to EFC at a commercially advantageous rate.
With an alleged budget of £500 million we are therefore left with £220 million to find. By the standards of other takeovers of Premier League clubs and what we are told about Moshiri, it would not be unreasonable to expect him to fund a significant part of the shortfall. However, we are led to believe that the funding of the balance is to yet be resolved,
Moshiri has already shown he has no knowledge of football and it would be no great surprise if his ability or willingness to fund the club in this crucial venture is also found wanting.
Back to sleep.
97 Posted 10/04/2018 at 10:16:39
98 Posted 10/04/2018 at 10:37:33
99 Posted 10/04/2018 at 10:46:07
There were any number of reasons given if I recall correctly, so if it was deemed a non-starter then, why would it be seen as an alternative now?
If it is still a potential solution, my reading of the situation is "get on with it" as I get the feeling we are looking at the first signs of a Bramley-Moore Dock meltdown.
I hope I'm wrong as I was hoping to see BMD built whilst I am still breathing fresh air but this thread has left me wondering.
100 Posted 10/04/2018 at 10:51:18
The repacking last summer highlights a multitude of sins, and it is a ground that has been sadly getting left to ruin for years now, and is also possibly why Everton are moving lock, stock and barrel, into the Liver Building?
101 Posted 10/04/2018 at 10:51:54
I really thought Moshiri was like the Second Coming now, I'm beginning to think he's more the Antichrist.
102 Posted 10/04/2018 at 10:57:39
103 Posted 10/04/2018 at 10:59:24
Well it did get worse. Much worse, in fact, by appointing a manager with a terrible history who is belittling our club with his presence.
So with this in mind would any of us be surprised if this thing falls flat on its face? Moshiri has not once announced himself to Evertonians as to his intentions except to show us all by still allowing Kenwright to stay at the club that he is not fully in control of things and he is holding his hand out on a bigger level than Kenwright did.
Joe Anderson may also be pushing this beyond his duties and letting his love for Everton cloud his judgment.
104 Posted 10/04/2018 at 11:04:14
105 Posted 10/04/2018 at 11:35:50
106 Posted 10/04/2018 at 11:58:14
Leave them empty and let the area stagnate/decline, then offer even less for the properties, sling in compulsory purchase orders sorry, just a pipe dream I know imagine a football club doing that to its local community!!!!
Well, I never!!!!!!
107 Posted 10/04/2018 at 12:35:12
It's now quite obvious that the club has been very misleading on this issue. I call it telling lies. What we fans are being subjected to certainly isn't the truth on this Bramley-Moore Dock saga.
Last year, I tuned in to TalkSport to hear Jim White announce his good friend Farhad Moshiri was coming on the show to give Evertonians some fantastic news. Basically Moshiri promised the world that he would deliver a new stadium that our fans deserve and can be proud of. Now, Farhad Moshiri has gone quiet, gone missing, gone skint, gone doolally maybe all of the above who knows? But he is failing to deliver on everything he promised our loyal supporters.
In my book, this subterfuge is telling lies or at the very least being misleading. Treating fans like idiots yet again. What else is going on at EFC we are not being told about? Is Boys Pen Bill jumping ship because he knows Bramley-Moore Dock is going tits up? I wouldn't put it past him... would you?
To David Barks. If I promised certain individuals I would provide them with a service or a product but, at the time of saying such things, I had no intention or the capability to deliver said thing, then that would make me a liar would it not? Just like the board are doing to us fans with this Dock Road bogus stadium issue.
I'm not a liar, mate, I'm just a mouthpiece who cares about our fans and the shit we have to put up with. See you when we build it, Davey.
108 Posted 10/04/2018 at 12:36:17
Moshiri bought out all the mortgages on Goodison Park, so we (or rather he) owns it.
The Park End is the easy fix; Bullens Road would be a little more difficult as there are a few houses there, but not that many. The rest of the space is the school and car parks on the old van sales site. The school could very easily be accommodated inside a stand.
In the longer term, the club would need to buy up the houses in Gwladys Street and possibly the properties in Goodison Road.
109 Posted 10/04/2018 at 12:50:32
110 Posted 10/04/2018 at 13:08:27
And maybe he doesn't see himself as the long term owner unlike Abramovich, so if he can get the council to stump up the Initial outlay, then so much the better. He can then look forward to selling the club in 5 years time with a brand new stadium, albeit on a long term lease from the council. But it will probably only cost as much as buying an average squad player per year. So any prospective buyer will find it very appealing.
111 Posted 10/04/2018 at 13:09:02
Buying up a handful of houses on the Bullens Road side (Muriel and Diana Streets) would cost approximately 1-2 weeks of Rooney's wages. A 25- to 30-m land grab on this side would comfortably open up a big enough footprint for a new 10-12k Upper Bullens... and a reprofilled lower tier adding 1,500-2,500 seats downstairs. The Park end can literally be any size. Therefore 50-55k is readily achieved by redeveloping just two sides at Goodison Park and it will cost nowhere near the same as Bramley-Moore Dock. with none of the unknowns and massive debt.
As regards parking, there will always be more spaces at an inland site than at a waterfront one for obvious reasons . and public transport at present is still in favour of the Goodison Park site. Too many people think this is Kings Dock. Bramley-Moore Dock is as close to Bootle Town Hall as it is to Lime Street or Liverpool One bus station, and no buses pass it.
112 Posted 10/04/2018 at 13:30:38
Also, the Gwladys Street is so out-of-date that and the Upper still has the wooden floors as well (?). That whole stand would also need to be replaced at some point in the near future. Let alone the poor views at the back due to the pillars and people standing in front.
People also seem to forget that new seats are a lot wider then the ones still at Goodison I'm sure new regulations also mean stairs have to be wider etc... You cannot simply replace like for like without losing capacity.
113 Posted 10/04/2018 at 13:34:36
Anderson is simply providing reassurance that, all scenarios taken into consideration, there is a commercial basis that allows Everton to build a stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock. The new stadium must happen to achieve the business case for Moshiri's investment in the club. There is no logic to his takeover without it. Plus we have bought the land.
The Plan B that the Mayor proposes is most commercially attractive for the reasons others have set out above, but it is there as a mitigation plan. The club's silence is because nothing has changed for them in relation to their requirement to raise £220 million.
And the Koppites are laughing out of sheer incredulity that Everton will in all aspects be a bigger club than them in 5 years.
114 Posted 10/04/2018 at 13:45:34
115 Posted 10/04/2018 at 13:45:59
It's just delaying tactics to see if the people will fall for the loan scam. They won't... or, if they do, they will all soon be ex-Councillors.
116 Posted 10/04/2018 at 13:50:05
Thanks for adding some cool headed comments to this thread. Even some of our steady contributors seem to be losing their composure.
IMO, Bramley-Moore Dock will happen as part of a massive Everton revival. I remember being at UMIST (Manchester) back in 1965 to 1968 when, as students, we crossed road after road of knocked down houses to the stand-alone Indian restaurant not too far away from Maine Road. We went there for a good feed of rice (err Biryani?) with the attraction if you could eat a whole one you'd get another one free (as if anyone of us could eat two!!??!!). The point is that Maine Road was a shithouse and Man City couldn't win a trick vs Man Utd except for a little guy named Colin Bell!
We will overcome on Merseyside and we will start to beat the RS on a regular basis. It is just a matter of time with a long-term business plan in place. It started with the Moshiri era and perhaps some stupid mistakes but we go on to learn from those and get stronger. I just hope I see the results as my 70th comes up in a couple of months!
NSNO. . GRONIPNPIS (Get rid of negativity it plays no part in success!)
117 Posted 10/04/2018 at 13:57:46
Simplistically, it is doable, but obviously should the TV companies pull the plug or Everton FC fail to be part of the elite league in whatever forms it may take in the next couple of decades, then we would be struggling to buy the top-tier players.
118 Posted 10/04/2018 at 14:02:53
So please let's stop making up nonsense about Goodison Park. A small land grab can easily give us the space to create 50k+ at Goodison Park removing all the obstructed views by replacing old upper decks if necessary and as has been shown elsewhere, all for far less than building a whole stadium on another site. Reprofilling will address all issues in existing lower tiers too.
As regards Infrastructure Goodison Park has more road access and far more public transport than Bramley-Moore Dock (at present).
119 Posted 10/04/2018 at 14:25:06
The lower tiers of the Bullens Road stand (from 1906?) and the Gwladys Street stand would probably need to be replaced as well. It's not just the seating area that would need to be updated, also the concourse and toilets area etc. It's tight down there, especially the Lower Bullens.
For the stand to go steeper, that would mean even more loss of capacity. Especially the Lower Bullens would end up in little more then a steeper version of just the Paddock.
It would be almost like building a whole new ground on a footprint we do not yet have.
121 Posted 10/04/2018 at 15:13:12
The new upper tier would be slightly set back from the existing one and higher. Allowing the lower tier to be expanded too. Its current treads are no tighter than most at Old Trafford and Anfield. At the end of the day, these are the cheap seats and essentially a terrace stand in any case.
The new upper tier of 40+ rows could be built at £3-6k per seat as at several other new upper tiers. These would be very high quality views with roomier treads and seats and large concourses on one or two levels to include lounge spaces. They would also have better viewing distances and angles than those shown at the consultation due to the shallow lower tier.
The same could be done at the Gwladys Street if necessary or an historic stand could be preserved (there are fewer and fewer with each passing year).
The Blue wall is also readily achieved at the Park End as was shown with the overlay produced by Dan Meis. A 30-40 row extension to our newest stand would be an easy task.
The resultant stadium needn't be a piecemeal redevelopment it also allows the club to invest incrementally as and when they can afford... and to judge demand for new capacity as they go along.
122 Posted 10/04/2018 at 15:16:28
Goodison Road towards Walton lane currently already cuts off a corner of the footprint as it is. If we would move the pitch a few yards towards the Park End and Walton Lane, which would make sense to create some breathing room at the Gwladys Street end, the trouble with Goodison road would become even bigger.
Or did you mean in your earlier post to accept Gwladys Street, Walton Lane and Goodison Road as given, and to "eat" Bullens Road and (parts of?) Muriel Street and Diana Street and move the pitch towards that side, possibly combined with a move towards Park End? That would give both the Goodison Road and the Gwladys Street sides room for bigger rebuilds and be a solution to keep St Luke's without compromising valuable stadium space. But I could imagine this has other challenges, not in the least that the current position of the stands would not fit with the new position of the pitch.
I am fascinated by the redevelopment option of Goodison Park. In theory, one of the pros is that it can be done in phases. Start with the Park End and Bullens Road to add +10k seats and great corporate facilities. If that works, do the other stands as well and increase the number of seats if desired.
But my gut feeling says that redevelopment is not attractive for investors and a shiny new stadium is.
123 Posted 10/04/2018 at 15:19:44
124 Posted 10/04/2018 at 15:20:45
"I think many of us are getting hung-up on the large numbers involved in acquiring a new stadium but, if my maths are correct, £500m divided by 25 years divided by £500 per season ticket means that 40k regulars at the new stadium would pay off the bulk of the loan(s) required, obviously it would take a few bob more to pay off the interest accrued."
These are some seriously huge figures, whatever you might think. At a 5% interest rate, paying down the loan over 25 years results in a whopping £325m interest cost in total, or £13m a year. You assume that we will have 40k season ticket holders for the 25 years. I am not sure how a neutral council tax payer can be so sure that we will maintain these season ticket levels for a quarter of a century.
What they would be sure of with the full £500m loan is Everton's commitment and hence the risk. lt would be £20m principal plus £13m a year interest for 25 years. That is a big number, even with the broadcast gravy train – 20% or so of total turnover.
Seems like a big ask from Joe to his councillors and dispassionate council tax payers.
Bill @ 92
"As I understood Joe Anderson's original statement it would be EFC who took out the insurance and insurance is similar to betting. The insurance companies 'lay off' liabilities to other companies to spread the risk. The road infrastructure has nothing to do with the proposed stadium or any loans. It's separate money and will happen if a stadium is built, or not."
Bill, maybe the insurance is lined up and won't cost much. However, until details are actually made public (which, to secure the council vote, I assume they would need to be) I am highly dubious of what Joe says. The financial crash taught us that, through the myriad of housing loans insurance schemes, someone was left holding the bomb once the dust had settled. Risk doesn't just vanish – it is spread. So someone out there has to be willing to ultimately take risk on Everton not defaulting.
It requires a complicated credit assessment on the club, its future earnings and liabilities, a view on wages and transfers and similar variables which over 25 years could vary significantly.
Who are these smart guys who have done this work? How much are they charging as a premium? Are they financially strong enough to pay out if EFC defaults? A dispassionate council tax payer will surely quiz Joe Anderson on this if he intends to take all the risk.
As for the point on roads, the press articles I saw said that Anderson justified the borrow-to-lend initiative on the basis that the profit made on lending EFC the money could fix the city's roads.
125 Posted 10/04/2018 at 15:27:31
Did I mention the council in my post? In fact I purposely stated wherever the loans are obtained from. Whoever provides the funding if it's not LCC will have to consider the viability of Everton FC in the long-term, won't they? If we take your lack of faith in the club and its future, then we may as well forget all about any new stadium?
126 Posted 10/04/2018 at 16:38:13
RS did it. Even easier now.
Hope those who talk about new ease of CPOs would be willing to hand deliver and explain the CPO notice to those whose homes they are.
Sit in newly refurbished Goodison and sup a cocktail on top of former home that people wanted to stay in (hence the C in CPO)? Ethically a bit tricky.
127 Posted 10/04/2018 at 16:38:40
On a thread relating to the possibility of the council providing the full amount of the stadium cost, you introduce of the notion of half a billion pounds materialising from 'Wherever'?? Ok, thanks for that searing insight.
"Whoever provides the funding if it's not LCC will have to consider the viability of Everton FC in the long-term won't they?"
Gosh, ya think?? Well I never. I thought these Wherever and Whoever geezers would just turn up, open up a truck load of suitcases full of used twenty pound notes and hand half a billion over to Billy and Mosh, who would take the cash whilst chortling like Beavis and Butthead. Ah-huh-ah-huh, ah-huh, ah-huh-huh, ah-ha, ah-ha, ah-huh.
"If we take your lack of faith in the club and it's future then we may as well forget all about any new stadium?"
Ouch, low blow! Okay, Okay, I geddit. This thread is supposed to be much like a North Korean rally. Excuse me whilst I don my Che Guevara beret and begin my maniacal clapping...
128 Posted 10/04/2018 at 16:48:58
129 Posted 10/04/2018 at 16:53:15
Loved his music.
130 Posted 10/04/2018 at 17:02:18
131 Posted 10/04/2018 at 17:05:24
I know you can't abide the fact that the British Taxpayer via the local council may provide some of the funding for the new stadium, but if there are no other viable alternatives, then the stadium plan such as it is, is dead in the water, isn't it? If the risk is too high for a local authority then it must be far too risky a proposition for the private sector?
NB: At no point did I want to get involved in a personal spat, but you have very strong views about this subject and perhaps you should be a little more forgiving towards us mere mortals who are only offering an opinion just like yourself.
132 Posted 10/04/2018 at 17:25:08
I thought that the Park End foundations were not suitable for the additional
weight that an extension would involve. I was under the impression that when it was built it was such a cheap and nasty development that any further expansion would not be possible. Do you have any knowledge of this? Certainly, the exits are ridiculously small and evacuating the ground in an emergency would cause some problems.
133 Posted 10/04/2018 at 17:25:59
In short re-developing The Old Lady is a really poor business case. Taking over the school footprint was discussed years ago and firmly booted out the park. That was the only real option and even then parts of Muriel & Diana streets would have needed CPO's
I can understand all reasons why everyone is jumpy and sensing deja-vu but this is different. The money for the stadium being quoted is not huge. Not in today's terms.
The dock area is in desperate need of redevelopment and this stadia would be a major plus in the plans. It would also help with gaining finance for improved transport links in an area sadly lacking.
134 Posted 10/04/2018 at 17:45:00
The credit for this non-starter has to go to Tom Hughes, whose persistence in posting about his dream child on every thread about Bramley-Moore Dock has finally hit pay dirt. But, I suspect, only in terms of fearful fans needing to have faith in something.
I can fully understand people not wanting to get behind Bramley-Moore Dock in the dire circumstances created by our illustrious leaders, especially if you conflate the maddening lack of progress off the field with the painful regression we have witnessed on it. And posting negatively about the project has no real cost in terms of lost face, as your portents of doom will be happily forgotten if the project moves forward. Or you'll be able to crow "I told you so" when it does finally crash and burn.
But, in the world outside of this thread, the club continues to move forward (albeit at a snail's pace) with fan consultations, having secured a 200-year land-lease agreement on Bramley-Moore Dock; a site investigation appears to have been done by Structural Soils Ltd; Dan Meis is still employed as the architect of what he says will be a 'unique' stadium; Joe Anderson continues to talk up the all-important financing of the project with no-one actually able to refute his plan, other than by playing political games or mobilizing rival emotions. And the lads on Everton Business Matters (who I would trust a thousand times more than Tony Marsh) continue to talk up the tantalizing prospect of a fine new Everton stadium on the Banks of the Royal Blue Mersey...
The project appears to be going ahead. Of course, in the tradition of Bayesian updating, it will appear that way, through a series of Next Steps (finalizing funding; council approval; planning application; review and revision; planning permission granted; designs finalized; contracts let; permits obtained; construction begins...). Or it will come to a screeching halt at any one of those many stages, with much sobbing, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Clearly a lot is down to perception, as with everything in this era of post truth. To me, it's a lot like a very long match preview thread in which plenty of fans want to lay down their commitment to predicting a result, one way or another. Personally, I've never understood that particular human trait; I'd rather watch how things pan out. But believing you can predict the future is fundamental to a betting psychology that is endemic among so many. I'm not betting either way on this one, as I'm not a betting man. But being keen, even excited about the possibility of a new stadium seems preferable to the equivalent of telling everyone the game is lost even before a ball is kicked.
135 Posted 10/04/2018 at 17:59:11
This is the site of the world's first purpose-built football stadium: I think it justifies expansion on that merit alone... I'd be quite happy handing over the going rate plus say 30%, and I'm quite sure many would be very happy to take it. I even surveyed them to that effect over 20 years ago. Back then, some of them were EFC's tenants.
136 Posted 10/04/2018 at 18:05:00
I know you can't abide the fact that the British Taxpayer via the local council may provide some of the funding for the new stadium"
No, you know nothing about what I can and can't abide by. To repeat my earlier posts, my issue has been why on earth would Joe Anderson be prepared to publicly declare the council as being prepared to do the whole lot, especially when (a) it gives Mosh and Bill a way out of finding their GBP 220m and (b) it is a much riskier proposal for the council to fund all of the costs. Genuinely, why? The link posted by Dermot gives as many downsides as upsides of Local Councils dabbling in borrowing to invest in the private sector. Its a path strewn with some successes but many, many failures.
"but if there are no other viable alternatives, then the stadium plan such as it is, is dead in the water, isn't it?"
Why do you discount Moshiri as a viable source for the cash? The club may say this is a hard amount to raise, but why is that Joe Anderson's problem? His public utterances should be the opposite
- Everton, I got you a great deal for more than half of what you need, now stump up the rest-.
Farhad Moshiri, at the last AGM said "As long as I am a shareholder Financial issues are not a problem", or words to that effect.
Well, now would be the time to prove this, no? He invested GBP 150m of his own cash on propping up the club's finances. Kudos to him. But is that it? No money left for the stadium? Is the public purse really the only viable option if Mosh can't find Everton's share?
"If the risk is too high for a local authority then it must be far too risky a proposition for the private sector?"
I think it is the reverse as far as investments are concerned - which is how Joe Anderson has painted this initiative. The private sector regularly takes on risky investments. They are by definition, er, private, answerable to their shareholders only. The Local council is answerable to voters. If Joe Anderson had made the case based around the importance of regenerating Bramley Moore, then yes, he could take more risks. But he was challenged on using scarce funds for this project instead of investing in roads. To which he effectively says "Ah, well, you see we will be making a profit out of this, which can be used for the roads so we can do both". It is at that point he introduces the trade off of risk versus reward. The private sector is better at assessing risk vs reward better than a council, no?
And right now, the private sector, as represented by Moshiri and EFC are struggling to find less than a half share. Joe Anderson felt obliged to say he was willing to support an initiative to take all of the risk. Don't you think we should question why?
137 Posted 10/04/2018 at 18:07:26
It is all well and good waiting and watching to see what the board's next move is but, as it stands now, would it be fair to assume that, if all goes well, we are looking at 5 years before the new Bramley-Moore Dock stadium is complete?
Like I have said before, I would love to take my father to a new stadium on the docks as it was he who took me to my first game at Goodison Park. My Dad was 80 last month and is still in fine health but how long is too long in your estimation??
Some guys won't make it to 5 years and that is my point. This just keeps dragging on with no light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately youth is not on everyone's side. 5 years might as well be 10 years if we are prepared to wait indefinitely. I see no proof of progress, so I don't feel convinced this will happen.
138 Posted 10/04/2018 at 18:26:21
Next up on Monday night football on Sky Sports it's Everton verses Stoke...1 billion people around the world think nah,I'll leave it tonight/today.
Glory starts with the League Cup first & foremost...NOTHING else matters.
139 Posted 10/04/2018 at 18:32:24
So it's now your beef – on behalf of old farts everywhere, who might not get to see it happen? And you're actually serious?
You don't realise that, if that was really an issue for you, you would be gagging for it to get built pronto, surely??? Instead of insisting that it won't!!!
It's like you are wandering aimlessly down the Dock Road, picking up the next pile of dogshit to hurl at the fan in the hope that something will stick.
Does it really matter if it takes 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years? It's a massive project – you do realise that? These things take time – and patience, and a hell of a lot of work by many dedicated specialists. Yet all we've heard is you demanding to know why we haven't seen a spade in the ground... for the sake of your old dad.
[Tears on the keyboard, gotta stop now.]
140 Posted 10/04/2018 at 18:33:04
3 Cups we have NEVER WON IN OUR FUCKING HISTORY Blues, just imagine the shape of our club having won all 3 on the bounce.
Football fans the world over ONLY notice teams that WIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
141 Posted 10/04/2018 at 18:35:04
That was quite the subject changer, even for you. Im sorry to inform you of this, but no business makes their plans with only those in their 70s and 80s in mind. You make business plans for the next 10-30-50 years. If this club was trying to rush a stadium project in order to guarantee its ready in time for your 80 year old Dad, then I would be the one raising all sorts of questions.
142 Posted 10/04/2018 at 18:59:27
143 Posted 10/04/2018 at 19:39:06
I attended the final workshop with Dan Meis last Wednesday. Also in attendance was Richard Kenyon, the club's director of marketing and communications. Mr Kenyon, amongst other things, informed us that the new stadium project was progressing, with the club hopeful of an announcement soon about funding, although he did not give any indication as to when. He also told us that the club hope to kick off at BMD in season 2022 / 23.
Now, like Michael says, this may or may not happen. I really hope it does, but will only finally believe it when I see evidence to suggest it will happen, but at the moment I see no reason to believe it won't happen.
A lot of people say it will fail because of past events. The failed Kings dock, the failed Destination Kirkby, amongst others. Ok, this is their opinion, it is not evidence to suggest this project will fail.
The club has spent an awful lot of money so far on this. Dan Meis has been back and forth crossing the Atlantic, as recently as the last fortnight. Who do you think pays for these flights, which no doubt will be business class, and who is paying hotel bills etc? It certainly won't be Dan himself. So far Dan has put an awful lot of work into this project, which was evident at the workshops, and no doubt the club has been paying him for his time and effort. Then again, maybe not, I don't know?
So at the moment, until the club say "Sorry folks, but due to circumstances, we need to pull the plug on this new stadium project" I still believe (or hope) it will happen.
144 Posted 10/04/2018 at 19:45:15
145 Posted 10/04/2018 at 19:59:39
I think both of you should realise time waits for no man. I just hope you are right and the Bramley-Moore stadium does get built. At the end of the day, it's what we all want. I reckon you fall into the OAP bracket, David, so I wouldn't go around mocking the aged... ha ha.
146 Posted 10/04/2018 at 20:04:03
147 Posted 10/04/2018 at 20:13:36
148 Posted 10/04/2018 at 20:46:33
I think you give me far too much credit for the "mood" you describe I could've posted precisely nothing and you would've had the same mixture of responses and outlooks as they are responses to the process to date and the club's own body language.
As regards "my dream child" . I would thank you for not trying to misrepresent me. I too would like to have a great stadium closer to the city centre. I'm no more enamoured with "Royal Blue Mersey" tag lines as I am with The People's Club to be honest. I would rather talk in terms of facts and figures.
One of those is that I was a part of a group who approached the club and Peel regarding a dockside stadium before the term "Liverpool Waters" was dreamt up. I won't bore you with the responses at the time, as I'm sure some of it may be documented on your site's archives. I also voted for Kings Dock before that, so I'm not at all averse to relocation but I do like to measure against the options and not be blinded by batman lights.
149 Posted 10/04/2018 at 20:49:54
How can the club find £45M for Sigurdsson, £24M for Klaassen, £30M for Keane, £20M for Pickford and then spend another £45M in January on Tosun and Walcott etc etc?
Roughly ⅔ from player sales (£90M Lukaku, as well as Barkley, Cleverley, Deulofeu, soon to be Mirallas, Sandro, Besic etc), the rest from Moshiri loans or investment. Just my guess. The first bit is obvious from reading beyond headlines
150 Posted 10/04/2018 at 21:22:18
I despair that so many of our fans miss the point completely. Yes, we spent the Lukaku money but we should've been wiser. Shopped a bit better in the summer.
151 Posted 10/04/2018 at 22:02:18
Party A, you stump up $2.50.
Party B, you stump up $2.50.
Then, seemingly out of no where, Party A says, "well, if Party B can't come up with the $2.50, we can cover all $5."
Is it not logical to connect a few dots and question Party B's ability to find $2.50 and live up to their side of the agreement?
Thereby questioning if the deal will go through at all?
Being skeptical of this has merit. And that skepticism doesn't make you a "Debby Downer" or negative - it makes you minimally a realist who is willing to look squarely into the face of a negative, unhappy ending.
152 Posted 10/04/2018 at 22:09:43
I hope this new stadium comes off, but I hope that Goodison can reclaim its noise, and its spirit, and its passion, and its fervour, and we can have a few seasons to really remember before it closes its doors for good!
Bramley-Moore, is hopefully our future, but the biggest challenge facing everyone at Everton is to take us out of the past, and start giving us something to get excited about, when we go to watch our team play.
153 Posted 10/04/2018 at 22:27:27
We're now fundamentally owned by a man of relatively modest means when compared to owners of nigh on half the clubs in the Premier League. In the unlikely event that Kenwright was credible when he stated the cost of Bramley-Moore Dock had risen to about half of Moshiri's personal fortune it's asking a helluva lot to expect Moshiri to take a financial risk of that magnitude, aware as he also is that the results just have to improve to maintain income from supporters in the next few years, and aware as he should be that that will require expenditure by him to match what he's already spent on the back of the one-and-only sale of a player of Lukaku's value.
So Tom, with genuine respect and as grim as some supporters consider the prospect to be, it'll come as no real surprise to me if you, and not Dan Meis, end up accepting the stadium brief. Sigh.
154 Posted 10/04/2018 at 22:36:39
I personally do think it will happen partly because I heard Dan Meis speak with such passion and energy about the project (there can't be many architects who get tattoos because of a commission!) partly because the Council need it to happen as part of a bigger regeneration project, and in part because Moshiri can't be accused of starving the club of money – plus he has good contacts (even if dubious??).
We need to get rid of that chancer Allardyce and get somebody who has a positive approach to the game, communicates well with the fan base, is passionate, avoids phrases that compare the club to a 'project', and someone there for the long term.
I don't know if it is harder or easier to be an older Blue (I am 56); at least those of a certain vintage remember growing up with the belief that we were top dogs on Merseyside so perhaps it's tougher for us to swallow the mawkish crowing of RS fans. Getting a truly inspiring manager this summer is a critical decision for the club's leadership – they can't get it wrong! I feel for the younger fans, those under 35 – they have had to put up with those RS arseholes for far too long.
155 Posted 10/04/2018 at 22:36:53
156 Posted 10/04/2018 at 22:49:56
157 Posted 10/04/2018 at 00:27:22
158 Posted 11/04/2018 at 03:34:51
The regeneration of the Docks is a decades-long project that oozes capital seduction. People like Moshiri are drawn towards these projects like moths to light or flies to shite! He knows nothing about football but he's made a billion somewhere along the line and defo wants more.
My understanding of finance is admittedly limited but I believe it's always debt that turns profit and everyone borrows. Moshiri is not going to be using his own money – that's not in his play book.
I think the failure to secure the Commonwealth Games has definitely affected the project and associated infrastructure costs. However, the potential of this area and comparisons with Melbourne point to an exciting transformation to boost a city already on the up.
This is too big an opportunity for the city. We are talking decades of construction work and investment and improved infrastructure. Think Fucking Big!!!! Everton are the anchor to this – it's a fucking unreal opportunity to further develop the city. Borrow Government money at low rates of interest... even the whole lot!!!
TV money is not going away; people are addicted to the Premier League... our risk would be going down. Come on, for fuck's sake, get this nailed!!
159 Posted 11/04/2018 at 07:35:38
Apologies, I missed your post. I have heard this rumour too, and have to say that I'm not sure about the foundations. However, any extension needn't affect the current structural loadings, as it can be built entirely separately, behind the current structure on its own foundations or alternatively the existing foundations can be bolstered retrospectively.
This can be expensive if it is required to build below and through the current structure (as was the case in refurbishing Ibrox's old Main Stand to create the new upper deck), but not prohibitively so, and this wouldn't be the approach in creating the equivalent blue wall at Goodison Park with added benefit of over half of it already being place, and paid for!
As regards the exits from the Park end I'm not entirely sure what you mean about the small exits. My season tickets have been in that stand since it was built, and I cant say I've ever noticed any great difficulties in this respect.
Yes, the relatively narrow street access could be addressed to help speed up egress, but it's all very doable. Of course the other thing is, that in an emergency, the entire capacity of a single tier stand has direct access to the pitch too.
160 Posted 11/04/2018 at 08:04:27
There doesn't seem to be, or I haven't noticed because I've never been right up at the back, an exit at the rear of the stand. Everyone appears to funnel through the central exits. Are there more at the rear that I haven't seen?
161 Posted 11/04/2018 at 09:02:02
If the stand was doubled in size to say 70-80 rows, then the number of vomitories would probably be doubled or trippled, with the second one per aisle roughly in line with the back of the current stand. If safe standing was included with increased capacity ratios, these vomitories would be opened up further for greater flow rates.
162 Posted 11/04/2018 at 09:48:35
One way or another, there is a lot to be gained by each of the three major stakeholders EFC, LCC, and Peel if the council provides the finance and the stadium is built.
For that reason alone I can't see it not going ahead.
163 Posted 11/04/2018 at 09:59:20
I'm with the gist of Tony Abrahams (#152). My immediate pipe dream is to watch a team of players who look as though they are coached to pass and move.
164 Posted 11/04/2018 at 12:19:51
Dan Meis said the conversion from seating to standing would not increase capacity at all (1:1). However, I always assumed is was something like 1:1.5. Do you know the actual ratio?
Also, the maximum rake of the standing areas for standing is currently set at a lower angle as for seating area which is why Dan Meis's presentation of the home end cannot possibly be correct.
Would that, for the Park End specifically, not mean the lower rows have to be reconfigured to a less steep rake as well?
165 Posted 11/04/2018 at 14:23:59
So safe standing might not be a runner anyway. Might have changed by the time we get around to building our new stadium though. Which is my opinion will happen.
166 Posted 11/04/2018 at 15:51:27
I have to admit that I'm not totally up to date on safe-standing, and possibly more importantly the legislation and guidelines that will govern its use. We've only really seen modern terracing at some new rugby league stadiums, and the rail-seat trial runs so far, and for that it is 1:1.
I believe the safe standing literature talks about ratios of up to 1:1.8 dependent on various factors such as type chosen, tread depths, rake angle, aisle sizes and access vomitory size/geometry etc. Someone mentioned that Celtic's are actually in a steeper stand than guidelines recommendations. So, it's hard to say what the future holds.
I think Spurs are planning for its potential future inclusion by incorporating a super-riser half-way up their large home end too.
168 Posted 11/04/2018 at 16:18:18
One disappointment with the recent workshops was no possibility for expansion. Increase in capacity would be possible with rail seating. When the topic of safe standing/rail seating came up, this seemed to be glossed over. Quoted ratio is 1:1, rail seats are more expensive, nothing is gained. I know the legislation doesn't allow it at the moment, but in four years' time, it probably will.
Back to the ratio. Even on the plans 1:1 was an assumption. With 2 rows of steps, between each row of seats, the ratio is 1:1.8 maximum. The green Code for Stadium safety quotes a maximum of 47 standing places in a 10 m² area. Even the maximum rake angle can be increased. Celtic's safe standing area has a rake of over 29° in the rear rows. Normal Maximum 25°. The tread depth (700 mm) was too small to allow two rows of steps. Minimum step tread is 350 mm but the rail seat takes up 50 mm so minimum is probably 800 mm.
At Goodison Park at the moment the tread depth is around 660 mm so everything would need to be reconfigured to gain on capacity. The club looked into expanding behind the Bullens Road Stand around 2000, but were put off by LCC.
The initial cost of the rail seats is about 30% hgher than the conventional seats. Not a lot in a £½ Billion budget. Every ,5000 seats would give standing room for 9,000. I hope the club look into this.
For me, rail seats can be used for sitting, so build some areas with the seats and be ready when the rules change.
There's a lot of information on this on the Safe Standing Roadshow website.
169 Posted 11/04/2018 at 16:34:49
On the other hand, the TV revenue has increased from £200 million 1992 to £3 billion in 2007, so that would mean in 25 years Moshiri will be pocketing 15 times more cash each year. £1.5 billion a year and the people would get the so called benefit of £3.5 Million – it is a monstrous rip-off of local people for the benefit of private interests.
On past figures, in the year 2043, the club will receive £1.5 billion for one years TV rights while the club will be paying the City the equivalent of £3.5 million. This is the real world. Even Philip Green would blush.
170 Posted 11/04/2018 at 16:35:33
Why oh why can't we just plan something properly and execute a Plan A?
It's not as if we have just decided we need a new ground. This club continues to astound and confound me at every step.
171 Posted 11/04/2018 at 18:06:31
172 Posted 11/04/2018 at 18:28:12
My point is this. A sound business plan should account for all eventualities and possible setbacks, with structures in place to overcome any pitfalls.
A Plan B stinks of no sound Plan A which, let's face it, has been a recurring theme on and off the pitch for god knows how long.
173 Posted 11/04/2018 at 19:24:49
Dave, that sounds like having Plan B etc ("overcoming pitfalls" etc).
I think the point is that not all variables are within an organisation's control. So you model "all eventualities", and have a plan should your preferred strategy not work out.
Like you I guess, I just want this to develop quickly, Dave. I've got everything crossed!
174 Posted 11/04/2018 at 19:35:03
It just feels/seems like that everytime our Plan A fails, we go back to blank sheet of paper.
I'll cross everything as well mate and maybe one day in the not to distant future we'll be sitting side by side in a shiny new stadium.
175 Posted 11/04/2018 at 19:41:52
176 Posted 11/04/2018 at 20:20:06
Your basic point is the effect of inflation on the value of money into the future. So you inflate the TV money into the club by 15 times, from £100M pa in 2018 to £1,500M pa in 2043... coz that's what happened between 1992 and 2007. (But no consideration of the effect of inflation on those sums you used...)
Either the repayments stay the same, at £7M, or they have an inflation clause that increases them over time. They certainly won't go down, but until there is an approved agreement, we're only guessing. Yet you try to say they will be paying the equivalent of only half that sum. So you cherry-pick that number to be inflation adjusted, but not any of the others you are using.
I think economists get beyond all this nonsense by calculating everything in terms of net present value. Let's see you do the same, eh?
177 Posted 11/04/2018 at 20:21:26
I think the Park End has much larger treads than 660mm (I have the drawings somewhere but don't have access to them just now) plus there are other safe-standing options other than rail seats, that might even allow retrofitting safe standing in many of the old converted terraces around the country.
As regards LCC and the Bullens Road stand, I don't recall any formal refusals to consider redevelopment on this side. In fact, they have stated categorically on a number of occasions since the 90s that they are open to suggestions, particularly on that side.
Now of course, a very strong local precedent has already been set with the redevelopment of Anfield seeing the clearance of several whole streets included some listed buildings. By comparison, our needs would be minimal.
178 Posted 11/04/2018 at 20:29:07
I know you have researched this and I would be interested to know how controversial and damaging this could be. Also, I would hope that a re- developed Goodison Park, an option that I think is seriouly worthy of consideration, would have no place for standing.
179 Posted 11/04/2018 at 21:39:40
Forget inflation the projected figures based on past history is that the city will receive £7 million for the year 2043 and for the same year the Owners of the club will receive £1,500 million. A great deal? For whom.
180 Posted 11/04/2018 at 21:45:31
181 Posted 11/04/2018 at 22:24:44
The Muppets in charge at EFC can't find the relatively small amount of cash to pay the Council to help build Bramley-Moore!!! Redevelopment of Goodison Park would be ten times the amount we need now. Please don't say we can do the work in stages as that means it will never get done as this is Everton we are talking about here.
If we don't move in the next 5 years, we are Doomed!!! Fans will not continue to spend their hard-earned money to sit in a pigsty while every other club in the country has a new modern stadium. Liverpool FC will continue to mop up all the young supporters coming through and we will be relegated eventually.
No disrespect, Tom Hughes, but these ideas of yours about redevelopment are embarrassing and idiotic. We need to get out of Walton and into Town ASAP. It is the only possible way for us to bridge the gap with LFC and the rest of the big boys in the Premier League if that is at all still possible.
In 2022-23, do you really expect loyal supporters to sit in a shit hole full of obstructed views and pathetic toilets and catering facilities? Wwhy should they have to?? I don't think fans will put up with it much longer and will refuse. Without a new stadium, many fans will just walk away and forget all about Everton. Kids will come to support Liverpool in the big shiny place especially the younger generation.
Moving stadium is not just about getting new corporate bums on seats it is about keeping hold of the fans we already have. Staying at Goodison Park will be the ultimate shattering of dreams. Just think about this before craving this nonsense of remaining in L4.
182 Posted 11/04/2018 at 00:01:36
I agree that CPOs can be very contentious and are often justifiably much-maligned. However, they are also a perfectly valid method of land/property acquisition, especially if it is intended for the general betterment of a city or area and literally thousands of homes have been acquired by the council in recent years using these methods.
Also, Everton Football Club is a major and historic local institution that is also entitled to some fair consideration. Goodison Park is reputedly: the site of the world's first purpose-built football stadium which I believe all adds kudos and value to the site, and to our club and to be honest probably adds far more value to the locality than a handful of houses. Therefore if the residents are suitably remunerated to the full value of their homes plus a good percentage, then I'm quite sure most of the upset would be avoided. Many might even be quite keen at the prospect.
Don't forget, there may also be many more local residents and business-owners/employees who will be adversely affected by our move. So, the loss of a few homes might be by far the lesser of two evils. After all, I honestly don't remember any Evertonians lamenting the loss of dozens of houses that used to occupy our car park.
Most don't even realise that one whole side of Gwladys Street was demolished by the club to facilitate the Upper Gwladys Street Stand in 1938 (after a decades-long dispute with one tenant). What they do remember, is that the club then created the finest club stadium in the country that accommodated almost 80,000 on a similar if not smaller footprint than Anfield, that never held more than 62k in its history. A stadium that was good enough to be the automatic choice for a World Cup semi-final venue in 1966.
So, not to belittle your concerns, I believe everything is relative, and a handful of houses will be far less missed than those lost around Anfield, or elsewhere all over the city, to the tune of thousands of properties.
183 Posted 12/04/2018 at 05:17:12
More like one tenth.
184 Posted 12/04/2018 at 05:32:32
If so, and the loan starts for the sake of argument in 2019, that is 24 years of interest payments £168m?
I don't know what the council would pay in interest over the same period but let's say £68m so perhaps £100m profit for the cost of setting up the loan and administering the collection of the interest payments.
On top of that, they have a Premier League club with an iconic stadium on the waterfront which is also a driver for the development of the rest of the area between Bramley-Moore Dock and the Pier Head. It doesn't look that bad a deal to me but perhaps I am being too simplistic.
Steve if you think the City should get a cut of the TV money, then perhaps they should borrow another £100m of cheap money and buy Blue Bill and his mates out. Hmmm I wonder if they could do that?
Apart from that, I am sad to say it, but Goodison Park is clapped out and the club needs this move desperately for the reasons Tony Marsh has identified at #181.
185 Posted 12/04/2018 at 07:52:48
Firstly, replacement or expansion of the two old upper tiers, and extension of the Park End can readily leave us with over 55k unobstructed views on our current historic site.
No disrespect, but do you really think this would cost anything close £500m, nevermind your stated ten times more £5,000m? That's roughly the cost of the whole Liverpool Waters scheme. The simple fact is, adding 15k net capacity to Goodison Park (say 20k gross), even at £10k per seat, would only be £200m. My feelings are that it could be achieved at around half that, and still result in a high-quality and unique stadium.
You then say that future fans will rush to support LFC in their "shiny" stadium. You mean the one that has been redeveloped in phases in an equally deprived area, at a fraction of the cost of building a whole new one in Stanley Park?
The point is, most major clubs have taken the pragmatic approach for the precise reason of cost, as well as continuity of history/tradition with known infrastructure.
Of the larger clubs that have relocated, Man City were gifted a (Commonwealth Games) stadium, West Ham the Olympic stadium. Sunderland built a relatively cheap bowl after their far smaller and more confined Roker Park site was deemed impractical for expansion. Similarly, Arsenal's Highbury could never be redeveloped because of its listed status and confinement, so they had no other option. None of this applies to Goodison Park, or compares financially with our proposed relocation to Bramley-Moore Dock.
I understand the desire for a smart new state-of-the-art downtown stadium, and agree that it could provide the major step-up in offer and perception to project us closer to our neighbours. I too have been advocating it for years. However, we always have to measure this decision against the other options. I believe that getting Goodison Park to over 50k unobstructed views, with high-quality new capacity needn't cost anything like Bramley-Moore Dock's projected £500m.
I also have some slight reservations about the new site, given its distance from town and major public transport hubs, and believe for instance that the loop site is far superior. I am also slightly concerned that Dan Meis is so insistent that the site constraints at Bramley-Moore Dock mean future expansion is not possible.
I accept that, when complete, Liverpool Waters will bring the city centre (or its expansion) closer to Bramley-Moore Dock, and hopefully with it new transport infrastructure too... but as I keep saying, this site is not the Kings Dock, and is closer to Bootle than Lime Street Station.
The major incentive for relocation to Bramley-Moore Dock was the enabling finance of the Commonwealth Games; the loss of this has left no other enabling partner or developments to help fund construction. Hence the hike in costs. If we had acquired a more central dock site, we could've cashed in on proposed surrounding developments... but we haven't, and are left at the poor end of the scheme, that Peel were having problems selling anyway (not a sniff of a buyer after over 10 years).
So, when you dust away the Royal Blue Mersey hashtags, soundbites and computer-graphics images, and you do the basic sums and comparisons in terms of transport etc... does it all still stand up? What are the actual costs? 25 x £7m is not £220m. Will we even get the loan, or is this another big Joe flight of fancy?
186 Posted 12/04/2018 at 08:07:23
I haven't had time this morning to read through all the recent posts but you say "one that has been redeveloped in phases in an equally deprived area". Surely that is a great reason for us to move away from a deprived area to one that will be a showpiece development on an historic waterfront?
For a long time, I was in favour of redeveloping Goodison Park... but now, with a site like Bramely-Moore Dock, I am right behind building an iconic new and modern stadium.
I love Goodison and I've been going there for getting on 60 years, but some time ago I took my mate and his son for their first Premier League game. In the Main Stand, part obstructed views were the only tickets we could get. They now have season tickets for... er... Stoke City with another mate. When I joked about Stoke with him last week he just said, "Well, Everton, a shit old ground with shit seats, at least we can see the pitch at Stoke."
When Stoke have more appeal to a 10-year-old lad and his dad, you've got a problem.
187 Posted 12/04/2018 at 08:55:15
Maybe Tom and others can give some insight into costing for a totally new stadium in L4. Not just an odd tier here and there but a full job. Who wants bits and bobs nailed on and sawn off leaving a cobbled-together mess like Anfield?
I guarantee you it will cost way over £200m to totally reconstruct Goodison Park. Maybe not 10 times more than Bramley-Moore Dock but at least 5 times more if it was ever completely finished that is. Bramley-Moore Dock is the gift horse our club can I'll afford to look in the mouth. A move away is a fresh new start and a chance to propel ourselves forward.
As for this notion of historical attachment and reliving memories at Goodison Park, all I can really come up with is the win over Bayern Munich in 1985. The rest is really nothing much at all to cling to when compared to across the park.
I wasn't here during the 1960s not many of us we're and so what if Goodison Park was the first four-sided football stadium in the world? What good is it doing us now? That is what we should concern ourselves with.
188 Posted 12/04/2018 at 09:24:50
I don't disagree with the motives and potential for the move at all, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime decision, and we have to weigh up all the pros and cons, and sift through what is known, and what's speculation. That showcase development has been on the drawing board for over 10 years and is currently in its umpteenth revision, each one slightly less ambitious than the previous one.
We should also be able to make that direct comparison with fully-costed redevelopment option(s). If we can't do that, we have to question the motives of our owners, and the process to date, because fundamentally that always has to be the starting point.
Also, part of any decision to stay would be the hope that a "showcase" development can take place in Walton too and be equally beneficial and transformational to the heartland of our traditional support, thus relieving some of that deprivation and acting as an investment catalyst there too.
Let's face it, most of Liverpool's inner city is deprived or decayed. If anything, the existence of Everton and Liverpool Football Clubs has at least helped preserve some of the substance and fabric of those surrounding districts for their communities.
Take a look at neighbouring Vauxhall and Scotland Road, Kensington or Dingle in the South end. These used to have massive populations supporting several major Victorian high streets, full of businesses and pubs etc. Most of these are either partially or completely gone now. That is not the case in Anfield and Walton, where those high streets and populations are still in place, and can be built upon.
As regards your friend who chose Stoke, did he choose them ahead of Liverpool, Man Utd, or Man City too? Could it be that he lives in Stoke? The point is, for far less than £500m, he could have still had over 50k unobstructed views to choose from at a refurbished Goodison Park too.
Of course, if he'd had an unobstructed seat in the Top Balcony, Upper Bullens or Upper Gwladys Street, I'd argue that he'd have a far superior view to anything available at Stoke's nondescript flat-pack, and one that takes far less time to get away from. Which was one of the reasons why that particular stadium took several years to fill.
189 Posted 12/04/2018 at 09:30:51
Forgive me, but it is on the doorstep of town. It is in the Vauxhall/Scotland Road area. It's at the foot of Boundary Street. It is closer to Everton (the original village, so speak).
It's a bit misleading to harp on about closer to Bootle. It's a dock so Bootle does run along the docks. If you took Goodison Park it's probably similar distance to Bootle than Lime Street too.
190 Posted 12/04/2018 at 09:36:12
We have to be looking long term for growth of the brand and revenue streams that can compete with the top 4 in the Premier League. I can only see a new stadium delivering it.
Anything less will see us cemented into lower mid-table mediocrity; the majority of Premier League clubs will overtake us.
Any forays into the top 6 will be short-lived and fleeting. Hopefully the same will apply to forays into the bottom six too.
191 Posted 12/04/2018 at 09:38:06
This is better than the Kings Dock for the city though, Tom, because it's going to offer us a huge expansion that we can only dream about. A city within a city, or another big part of it?
192 Posted 12/04/2018 at 10:03:39
I keep saying it because it is a fact that is readily verifiable on any map or route-planning website.
I can also say that it is not Kings Dock, because it isn't, and is not within a few mins walk of all of the city's major bus-routes and rail hubs. It also does not boast the same neighbouring enabling opportunities of that truly city centre location, that already had several major developers lined up, who jumped in as soon as we fluffed it.
Yes, it is slightly closer than Goodison Park to Lime Street (literally by just a few hundred yards), but we are being sold this as a downtown stadium when it is not (yet), and furthermore, Goodison Park already has all of that infrastructure and bus routes in place, is nearer to the inner ring road, is approachable from all sides, and has far less unknowns. So wouldn't it be prudent to take a step back and look at all those issues?
So yes, the Royal Blue Mersey vision is there, but it would be all along our waterfront, that doesn't mean that they are all suitable sites. Bramley-Moore Dock is closer to the city-centre generally (so is Birkenhead docks, would we advocate that?), and much of the logistical issues are resolvable especially if the Liverpool Waters scheme comes to fruition, but there are a lot of imponderables, and it will all be at a cost, and have consequences.
193 Posted 12/04/2018 at 10:30:22
No disrespect, but these are mainly just sound bites if they are not backed by hard facts and figures.
Yes, a shiny state-of-the-art downtown stadium can be transformational. Better access, better public-transport to relieve congestion and greater year-round useage etc all help boost those income streams. Not all of that is guaranteed at Bramley-Moore Dock, and very little is already in place in terms of infrastructure. Therefore, we have to weigh the cost of all that, and what we might actually end up with, with the cost/benefit of redevelopment of Goodison Park.
So far, all we know is that this will probably be a football only stadium (no moving roof) thus limiting its concert venue potential.
194 Posted 12/04/2018 at 11:07:48
What I intended to say was that so far all we have seen is an outline design for a stadium. We are told that its capacity will be fixed (non-expandable), and hints that it will be lower capacity than some earlier ambitious estimates.
That snippet alone may affect those hotly anticipated new revenue streams especially if a redeveloped Goodison Park can yield a greater capacity for less outlay.
What if this site is too distant from the richer pickings of the more central docks to ever attract new developments and our stadium remains high and dry next to a sewage works with no new station at Vauxhall?
What if the logistics don't stack up, and grid lock turns it into a nightmare with a £500m price tag that less people...
195 Posted 12/04/2018 at 11:54:15
You have been passionate about us staying at Goodison and put forward many valid points why we should. You have also researched your information very well. To be honest since the KD fiasco I think many Evertonians have become frustrated with the club regarding a ground move. I like you have a few reservations about the move, especially the road and rail infrastructure that will be needed to get 50,000 people in and out of the ground. At present there is only access by 1 road and how they get round this I am not sure.
I think for years we yearned for someone with real money to take over and move the club forward, then we all thought with Moshiri coming on board things would change. But for whatever reason we have actually gone backwards since his arrival. He has certainly put money into the club but it seems the people he appointed to spend that money have let him down badly.
So, with the football side of things not going well, the thought of a new stadium has become more of a clarion call for our supporters. But, even with a billionaire owner, we are struggling to match the money the council are lending us, seems like we haven't moved on at all. So at present, we have a manager that nobody wants and a stadium that looks still way off and not the 60,000 capacity most fans wanted.
I just hope that very soon we will appoint a manager the fans can get behind and a team that will at least compete away from home. Let's hope the funding issue is sorted very quickly and we can look to a new ground that we can all be proud of.
196 Posted 12/04/2018 at 12:45:05
To think it's almost a quarter of a century since Peter Johnson arrived with talk of building a new stadium and, after all the subsequent promise and lies, we're barely any further forward, if we've progressed at all.
Already the proposals seem to be being watered down. As a once-in-a-lifetime event, surely the objective should be to squeeze the maximum possible capacity onto that site?!
All along, the obvious answer seemed simply to expand our current footprint to Walton Lane & rotate the pitch 90 degrees. This has always seemed a much cheaper and more achievable proposition than any proposals to date. It could have all been done and redone a couple of times over the 20+ wasted years.
I wonder how that enlarged footprint compares to Bramley-Moore Dock? It looks bigger & squarer to me; I I'm sure you could do more with it.
197 Posted 12/04/2018 at 13:36:31
Contrary to what you might think, I am honestly not averse to relocating at all. Like many others, I am also quite wary and apathetic after so many stadium errors and let downs in the past.
However, as a full-time Evertonian and part-time stadium anorak, I still feel duty-bound to follow this whole process, and respond to what I feel are often misplaced assertions regarding Goodison Park's potential, and/or the state of play regarding Bramley-Moore Dock, and I try to back up my opinions and views, even if only in thumbnail facts and figures.
All that said, I am as excited as the next blue at the prospect of a great new stadium in a great location, and everything that might entail. However, I stand by my beliefs that we always have to consider all of our options against what can be done at our traditional home. That is a very measurable benchmark, but one that was often ignored in previous episodes, when the result of our collective apathy could've been disastrous for the club. That still applies.
198 Posted 12/04/2018 at 14:48:57
1) Club pays for Stadium
2) Council go guarantor for £300m loan but club raise the money
3) Council borrow £280m, club find the rest
4) Council pay for everything.
Can anyone see a pattern here? The costs get progressively transferred from the Club to the people of Liverpool... Wake up and see the scam.
199 Posted 12/04/2018 at 15:07:52
Do I also recall that the Bullens Rd school had a finite lifespan? If so, acquire the land for future further development.
One other thing relating to infrastructure. A number of years ago it was reported that amongst all PL grounds GP had the fastest post-match vehicular traffic dispersion rate. Perfect.
200 Posted 12/04/2018 at 15:27:29
Also, if I remember, the increase in footprint to 're sling' the various roofs is not large...basically where the pavements are now.
201 Posted 12/04/2018 at 15:29:27
Just look at the deal Sky is trying to push through with Disney-Fox. The figures being mentioned would have had accountants crapping themselves years ago. Even when taking into account player wages, consider the good Ol' Us of A. When BPB took over Goodison a certain Mr Jordan was earning $36m pa. No one panicked, no one went bust.
This panicking over the cost is bullshit, the more we prevaricate, the more the cost will rise. But this is Everton we are used to thinking small scale, aren't we. Next stadium will be an allotment in Walton Park!!
Jay Wood(s) is right about a Nicola Cortese type appointment, A person with an over-arching control,plan and vision. Not a muppet former PE teacher and a spanner who is great in the West End or as a presenter on Radio 2.
You may think I am talking bollocks (as usual) but we need to open our minds to financial opportunities. Moving the club on to bigger things and arenas. If we agree the deal with the council,the infrastructure will be built to accommodate the fans. Remember that The (mighty) City of Liverpool still needs to rebuild, refresh and refurb. This new ground will be another USP.
As a finacial non-football comparison look at lucas film, they were paid £2bn. for Star Wars in 2012. Everyone said it was way too much. It has proved to be great investment, grossing $7.5 bn in 2015 for alone.
In no way am I comparing us to S.W. just trying to illustrate that if you invest correctly, It will pay off. Bramley- moore dock is our opportunity we cannot afford to let it slip.
202 Posted 12/04/2018 at 15:32:53
The Farce be with you?
203 Posted 12/04/2018 at 15:55:49
The 'scam', as you call it, does not cost the people of Liverpool anything. In fact, it nets them the lion's share of Everton's interest repayments.
Here it is in simple terms:
a) LCC can borrow the £280M from the PWLB at very low, very favourable interest rates.
b) EFC would pay back interest on that loan at a higher rate, but probably still below any rate they could get on the open market.
c) LCC would net around £7M per year from Everton's interest payments.
d) That is extra money coming in to the City coffers, to pay for infrastructure and services.
e) There is no financial burden (or 'scam') on the people of Liverpool... in fact just the opposite.
The City wins, LCC wins, Everton wins... the only losers are the LibDems and the kopite gobshites.
Why would you not want that?
204 Posted 12/04/2018 at 15:58:12
Surely if the new stadium is built the film would be "The Force Awakens!" or "A New Hope"
205 Posted 12/04/2018 at 16:03:13
Ive just been to Manchester before, and the thing that struck me about the place, was how many cranes, span the skyline. Its growing all the time and if Liverpool, is to hang on to the coat-tails, of what a major city should look like, then this whole area of Docklands, needs to be regenerated, with more than just flats, houses, and car showrooms, like most of the south end docks has been developed?
If this wasnt about a stadium for Everton, then Im sure everyone would be able to see what a great benefit this is going to be for the city of Liverpool in general, and as got to be the main reason for Joe Anderson, pushing like mad?
206 Posted 12/04/2018 at 16:13:53
My mate lives down the lane that I live on, in North Wales and an hour from Goodison. United and the RS, well he'd never get tickets there. either and City didn't have the same appeal so he went to Stoke with another pal of ours.
"if he'd had an unobstructed seat in the Top Balcony, Upper Bullens or Upper Gwladys Street,". That's the problem Tom, too many of our seats ARE obstructed views and a ten year old lad gets to see (for now!) Premier League stars at what he thinks is a modern stadium, light years ahead of Goodison. He's young. Tradition means nothing to him, just as it means nothing to the next generation of fans. But a new and iconic waterfront stadium that sticks two fingers up at Anfield will.
207 Posted 12/04/2018 at 16:17:15
208 Posted 12/04/2018 at 16:43:48
I might be wrong but I seem to remember the proposal being for the money to come to EFC through a Special Purpose Vehicle(?) and which would provide LCC with a measure pf protection should EFC hit financial problems??
If so, even less of a scam against the good people of Liverpool (City).
209 Posted 12/04/2018 at 16:53:01
The SPV is a detail I'm not familiar with. I guess I didn't read that memo!
210 Posted 12/04/2018 at 16:59:44
"Essentially the council, through the SPV, gets first dibs on some of Evertons most important sources of income – like season ticket sales.
Mayor Joe Anderson says the SPV deal has been thoroughly scrutinised to make sure the councils money is safe.
Everton FC has had to provide a “security package” as part of the deal to ensure that the SPV always gets paid.
It will have to create new bank accounts into which certain club income streams will be paid. If the SPV doesnt get its rent, it can dip into those protected accounts.
The Mayor said: “Liverpool Council will have first take on season tickets, on the players themselves, on the naming rights, on the ownership of the stadium and of the television rights.”
211 Posted 12/04/2018 at 19:54:07
Of course it's anecdotal only, but if he chose Stoke ahead of city, with a far superior stadium and team, I'm not sure he'd be too worried about being on the waterfront or not. Even now GP has more unobstructed views than the Bet 365 stadium. It also has far more elevated views, and for many would still be superior than some modern flatpack bowls.
I work with footy fans from all over the world, and have taken dozens to Goodison. Most have been quite impressed, including one stadium architect who couldn't believe that we were considering moving. Similarly, I once took a mixed group of fans from Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Glasgow and Norwich. I got them all tickets in the corner of the upper Gwladys some right behind a column. They all loved the place, warts and all, but of course I'm not really advocating keeping it as it is now. New bigger upper tiers would erradicate all of the obstructed views, and if we are talking in the realms of investing hundreds of millions then anything is possible at GP.
212 Posted 12/04/2018 at 20:18:31
So you are reduced to name-calling, you are much happier with the phoney sycophantic great article as usual, Michael. Spin what you like: facts are facts. By the way, if you are not a Liverpool council taxpayer, you have no right to comment, it's not your money they are risking.
Just say in a few years the super clubs decide they want the whole cake and form a Super League and EFC are not included. We can rely on the likes of a self-seeking fat ex-Mayor and yourself to pay for it, can't we?
£17 million spent on Finch Farm, including building costs – £1 million repaid after 5 years... it will be 80 years before the debt is paid at that rate. This is Anderson's idea of a win-win situation. Now he want's another win-win rip off.
213 Posted 12/04/2018 at 20:40:58
To counter your spin on Finch Farm, the figure given by Anderson to benefit the City is £200k per year; if you give any other figures, you must provide the same proof I have provided (it is on record) or they are worthless.
I have read loads of figures re this on here but have only ever read generalisations by Anderson. You frankly admit in post #209 that you don't have any idea about the SPV.
The Scam, my friend, is using public money by proxy to benefit a private company and probably a Russian Oligarch. The Liverpool people had £500k plus squandered on the Commonwealth Games purely to get a Stadium.
Finch Farm is a millstone around the City's neck. Now we are told this farce will cost them nothing. I genuinely agree with you – the stadium will cost the people nothing because the loan won't go through. As for Goodison being unaffordable, it will be affordable because it can be spread over time.
214 Posted 12/04/2018 at 20:48:35
So the SPV has been thoroughly scrutinised – but no-one knows by whom. No one even knows what it is – no-one has seen it, not even Councillors.
An independent financial report was commissioned by the Mayor but he will not release it; a resignation followed. This Special Purpose Vehicle has blacked-out windows.
215 Posted 12/04/2018 at 21:11:48
I love Goodison. I always stick up for the place when others point out it's obvious deficiencies. I will be very sad when we leave but I realise that it is no longer fit for purpose.
216 Posted 12/04/2018 at 21:41:24
Who said? This is merely setting out the concept, the means by which money could be raised at a preferential rate beneficial to EFC; with LCC gaining an annual income for no outlay; with EFC eventually owning a ground; and with a device to minimise risk to LCC (with the SPV having first call on EFCs assets). As far as I understand the concept.
At the moment, again as I understand it, we're at the concept stage and nothing has been detailed or scrutinised or signed off.
That's all I'm saying. If I understand it correctly.
217 Posted 12/04/2018 at 22:45:43
Are you telling us that you're a kopite? Because that would certainly explain the bizarre stance you are taking on this. Of course, at the risk of completely undermining any lingering credibility you may have...
I can't confirm anything you've been posting about Finch Farm. At the time it was announced, Evertonians who did the calcs were mostly complaining that Everton would be paying back far too much over the period of the Finch Farm deal (50 years?) — so where exactly are you getting your numbers from?
I would suspect from the context that £200k is actually the annual profit the City are seeing from the Finch Farm deal, after factoring in the associated costs. If that is the case, it would surely be a good deal for both Everton and the City? But I understand why you would not be able to bring yourself to admit that.
However, feel free to ignore my comments as I'm not a Liverpool council taxpayer, and therefore have no right to comment... But I'll say it again: there is no Liverpool taxpayer money at risk here: quite the opposite. (Does that therefore mean I can comment???)
Both deals – Finch Farm and the BMD SPV – involve net gain to the City of Liverpool and its taxpayer base.
218 Posted 12/04/2018 at 23:05:55
On a global level the 2008 crash was predicated on the lapse of return on mega-loans issued for years like a tsunami in the USA for unfeasible house buying, and then there was the Great Depression of the 1930's, and before that there was the South Sea Bubble of the 18th century, all and sundry exclaiming at the time the "win-win" situation, guaranteed folks, roll up, roll up, until it all exploded into years-long real hardship for ordinary folks.
The bottom line for some of us is that "buying" things whilst bestowing the need to pay for our purchase onto future generations who have no actual guarantee of having the means to pay it is at least amoral, if not immoral in the light of worldly experience.
Here endeth the lesson!
219 Posted 12/04/2018 at 23:24:02
Had another look and the park end does look wider, thanks for that. Points noted on different types of standing areas. The reason I harp on about the rail seating is because it works, Dortmund 81,000 standing 66,000 all seated. It is flexible, and easy to change from standing to seating. I am not sure but I think it gives the highest P and S factors, so a higher standing to seating ratio.
Regarding the Bullens Road Stand, I said the club where put off by LCC. From what I have read, the site would have nearly doubled (8 to 15 acres). 91 houses were to be demolished. The school was to be moved to the Eileen Craven site in Walton Lane. Part of the site was to be developed to fund the stadium build. LCC warned Everton that there would be a lot of opposition, from not only the residents, but also city planners. A feasibility study revealed the development would not raise any were near the revenue to cover costs, at the time £50M. The club then concentrated on the Kings Dock bid.
I too am concerned about the escalating costs. I think Goodison would be a cheaper option. I doubt that LCC would loan the money for this. There main interest is in kick starting Liverpool Waters. The Commonwealth Games was supposed to do this. I fail to see how a running track could have been accommodated on this site. Even the East West axis is restricted with the listed Hydraulic tower.
One Benefit with Bramley-Moore Dock would be Stadium naming rights. With the prime Location this could be considerable. Now the new cruise terminal at Princess Dock has been passed, it could be even more lucrative. I doubt a redeveloped Goodison would raise much. Have the RS found a sponsor for their new stand yet?
220 Posted 13/04/2018 at 01:11:05
I agree that the rail seat is a very neat solution. It probably should be noted though that Dortmund's South Tribune is actually mainly half traditional terrace, with rail seats used only in the rear extended section. So, if the likes of the Gwladys Street lower didn't meet the criteria for rail seats in the format we've seen, then there are alternative methods.
As regards the Bullens Road enquiry, the problem wasn't that they were refused planning permission (they never applied), but was more to do with the club's methodology. It was simply another case of the club wanting something for nothing (a bit of a recurring theme). It wanted to find a partner to redevelop the whole site bounded by Walton Lane, to release enabling funding. Then to build a whole new stand on that side, and modify other stands too if I remember rightly. The council simply advised that such a development would probably not generate the level of enabling funding on that site at that time.
However, it is important to note that at no point did they deny the club the opportunity to expand its footprint to accommodate a larger stand, and this need not require anything like 90-odd properties. I think an extension of little more than bridging just the road itself could yield 4-5k new capacity on its own. A slightly further infringement into the building line could start to add more new capacity. Even with right of light considerations this could be negotiated down to a minimum landgrab.
Conversely, things may now have changed on the enabling potential of that site. The whole site could've been acquired for less than the downpayment on The Bramley-Moore Dock lease, and a new major community/commercial led mixed development might now tie into the whole football quarter concept, to help release funding to create a landmark facade along that whole side facing the park and our neighbours. An architectural face off to include a new school, hotel, residential and commercial blocks running from Gwladys Street right around the corner to Spellow lane. Wouldn't this be equally entitled for a similar SPV loan?
You may be right about the naming rights, but how lucrative are they? In any case, several stadiums have changed their stadium sponsor, so why can't an older stadium, especially if it has been extensively remodelled? As far as Liverpool's new stand is concerned, I'm not sure where they are with naming rights, but the whole thing will be fully paid for in just a few seasons regardless.
221 Posted 13/04/2018 at 01:36:26
Where does that fit in the admittedly dim and distant NSNO mantra?
222 Posted 13/04/2018 at 03:40:01
So it was refreshing to hear your Mayor, Joe Anderson, on the Blue Room podcast.
As an overseas Evertonian, I have to confess I didn't know much but about Joe Anderson other than he is the Mayor of Liverpool, an Evertonian, and from the left side of politics.
I invested a bit over an hour in listening to the whole of the podcast. Our chum Paul (otherwise known as the Esk) was one of the participants. The Mayor was asked and fielded all the questions that have been raised on here from how the loan works to the size of the proposed new stadium.
He answered them all with conviction and credibility and, in my opinion, he has the benefit of the City and its people at heart in driving this deal. I recommend you spend the time to listen to the whole podcast.
Joe Anderson strikes me as a man with a very entrepreneurial outlook and vision for the future of Liverpool and its people. If I was a Liverpool ratepayer, I would be getting right behind this man.
As far as the long-term interests and welfare of EFC are concerned, I would say the more money the council lends it, the better. If we are going to have a new stadium, somebody is going to have to lend us the money because Farhad Moshiri won't.
Organisations lend money for a reason to make money. I would have thought it is better that LCC make that money than private enterprise. Private enterprise will get their share when the waterfront development charges ahead.
Here is a tip for the future if the stadium construction commences in the summer of 2019, Peel will announce that they are going to reopen the viability of the electrical tidal barrage project. That would be something for Liverpool's people to be really proud of.
Get behind it fellas Manchester has been the cock of the north for too long. The reason was their leaders had a vision and courage they invested in and built the Manchester Ship Canal.
223 Posted 13/04/2018 at 03:51:15
224 Posted 13/04/2018 at 04:07:32
225 Posted 13/04/2018 at 06:10:28
226 Posted 13/04/2018 at 07:24:05
We would know the true figures, would we not, if they were ever released! It's over 5 years of Finch Farm and nobody knows the figures only the "£200 per year" snippet the Mayor let slip.
We don't know anything, Councillors don't know anything... Why? Why no public financial information?
227 Posted 13/04/2018 at 07:35:13
"you are reduced to name calling..."
"... a self-seeking fat ex Mayor..."
Presumably, name calling is okay provided you're the one doing the shouting.
228 Posted 13/04/2018 at 09:33:03
Well, I have learned by experience not to believe a word that the Mayor says on this subject. He won't tell the people anything. Always bits and bobs he wants to spin never the full or even half the picture. He is the mushroom farmer keeping us all in the dark and feeding us manure once in a while.
Please show me the document that proves the things you claim. You state yourself it is just a concept. Concepts, generalities, spin... need to know disclosures. It is facts the people want.
230 Posted 13/04/2018 at 17:23:49
But as I said "At the moment... we're at the concept stage and nothing has been detailed or scrutinised or signed off". That's because, as I understand it, the possible proposal now seems to have moved on (EFC to raise a portion of the loan). But the point remains about the concept the use of a SPV for the benefit of EFC and LCC and the protection of LCC. Still to be detailed and scrutinised.
231 Posted 13/04/2018 at 20:35:58
You say Joe said over a year ago that it has been scrutinised. By whom? What was the outcome? What does it consist of – this is my very point, nobody gets told anything, not even elected Councillors. All is kept secret from all but his Cabinet of 9 underlings.
They make all the decisions – the other 90 or so Councillors are as in the dark as we are. If he can, Anderson will try to get it through this way. This is the reason I am against it. It has to be a full Council vote – not "it will go before the full Council" but "there will be a full Council vote". If the Mayor etc objects to that then they are hiding something.
232 Posted 14/04/2018 at 01:04:48
I also want transparency. My point was solely about the degree of security that is provided by a SPV. No more no less.
233 Posted 14/04/2018 at 08:22:58
Joe's rivals suggest that the CIPFA report into the deal was far more critical about the assessment of financial risks to the council, and that is the reason it has not been made public. Joe says it's simply a matter of commercial sensitivity, and that it is only coincidental that the council's director of finances has resigned at this time too. I assume the club will have to bear the burden for the insurance too, so has this increased in light of the report?
I haven't read anywhere what the actual yearly costs would be to our club. £220m up front: perhaps Usmanov could do a 20-year naming rights deal for most of this? They've mentioned £7m per year interest payment paid to the council, plus insurance, plus I assume repayment of the balance. Is this right, and how much does this all add up to per year total payment? How would this extrapolate out to the greater amount of £500m? Is there a danger that the total payment, including insurance adjusted for reassessed risk, might be similar to costs of a private loan without use of the fund and SPV?
Alternatively, without the Commonwealth Games enabling funds, are there other sites closer to the city-centre that might leverage greater enabling developments than Bramley-Moore Dock?
234 Posted 14/04/2018 at 12:46:39
Apologies, I missed your post, but I'll reply now as it illustrates some of the misconceptions that have plagued this question from when Peter Johnson first mentioned relocation, right up to the current situation, as well as some misplaced assertions that seem to be entirely your own making (your points in quotes).
"Currently, Everton FC are being asked to find £220m to be partners in the Bramley-Moore stadium. This is chicken feed when you consider what Spurs are doing with their new project in North London."
Firstly, we are being told that the overall cost is £500m, not £220m. Shouldn't your first concern be: how has that grown from initial estimates of £280m? How much of it is stadium construction costs, and how much facilitating works or infrastructure costs?
Secondly, much of Spurs' stadium has been leveraged by extensive developments on land acquired by Spurs, and by the NFL franchise, so we have to be careful when making direct cost comparisons. Our enabling-funding appears to have evaporated with the loss of the Commonwealth Games. Up to this point, every relocation proposal has supposed to have included a large enabling package... in fact, they have all failed primarily because those funding elements failed to materialise. Apparently now it doesn't matter? Why? Because we have TV money, and it's on the waterfront?
"Maybe Tom and others can give some insight into costing for a totally new stadium in L4. Not just an odd tier here and there but a full job. Who wants bits and bobs nailed on and sawn off leaving a cobbled-together mess like Anfield?"
The point is, Goodison Park, like many other stadiums, does not need to be "totally renewed" at all and much of the existing fabric is reusable. This is the main reason why the vast majority of large football clubs have chosen redevelopment over moving. It is almost always cheaper, unless there are insurmountable or costly hurdles (which isn't the case at Goodison Park). Does The Bernabeu or San Siro look cobbled together to you? They were redeveloped in precisely this way.
Adding, extending or replacing upper tiers would be transformational. All obstructions removed, with substantial new capacity and amenities. Furthermore, because you are only looking at about say 20k (gross) new capacity, as opposed to having to build 55k from scratch, that capacity can all be high value and high quality Not "a mess" at all.
"I guarantee you it will cost way over £200m to totally reconstruct Goodison Park. Maybe not 10 times more than Bramley-Moore Dock but at least 5 times more if it was ever completely finished that is. Bramley-Moore Dock is the gift horse our club can I'll afford to look in the mouth. A move away is a fresh new start and a chance to propel ourselves forward."
So, you're saying that a 55k redeveloped Goodison Park would cost £2.5bn? I think if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you have to stop making ridiculous exaggerations. As I said before, even at £10k per seat, it would only be around £200m. In reality it would probably be nearer to half that, with lots of examples of similar projects to reference.
"As for this notion of historical attachment and reliving memories at Goodison Park, all I can really come up with is the win over Bayern Munich in 1985. The rest is really nothing much at all to cling to when compared to across the park. I wasn't here during the 1960s – not many of us we're – and so what if Goodison Park was the first four-sided football stadium in the world? What good is it doing us now? That is what we should concern ourselves with."
Again, please be serious, this statement is laughable. Goodison Park is about far more than the Bayern Munich game, which is just one of many memorable footnotes in this stadium's long and illustrious history, even if you don't remember the 60s.
What has Goodison done for us? Well, at the conclusion of the Taylor Report, the aging quality of Goodison Park still afforded our owners the absolute luxury of requiring the least investment to reach 40k, and be fully compliant with all of the report's recommendations. It is not the old lady's fault that our custodians literally failed to build on that opportunity. The historic importance, or its talismanic properties in having witnessed easily the most top-flight games of any English stadium, might not appear on any spreadsheet's bottom line; it nevertheless indicates a far greater value over many generations than you infer. We all want a great stadium but let's not resort to trying to demean that which deserves far more respect. "If you know your history"!!!
235 Posted 14/04/2018 at 13:17:03
'I wasn't here during the 1960s, not many were.'
What an outlandish statement to make! I sit in the Upper Bullens, at least half of the fans there CERTAINLY were there in the 1960s!!! Bit of a silly thing to say, in an otherwise entertaining response.
237 Posted 14/04/2018 at 13:22:25
I was quoting Tony Marsh... hence the quotation marks
238 Posted 14/04/2018 at 17:23:26
What about AIG default swaps? See a lot of similarities.
239 Posted 15/04/2018 at 13:23:32
Can anyone find any detailed financial figures for any Anderson deal? Has anything ever been published in detail? That is not the way the Mayor works. How can one scrutinise what one can't find out.
242 Posted 16/04/2018 at 09:27:53
The Council bought Finch Farm for just under £13 million and the Club pay £1.2 million a year in rent until 2042 (subject to 2.5% yearly increases)
The Council borrowed the money at low interest rates and will have paid off the loan after 25 years, leaving the last 15 years of the lease as pure profit for the council. Once the lease has concluded the council still have the land and buildings as an asset which can be sold or re-leased.
Everton's payment is guaranteed by the TV rights payments over which the council has a charge.
The Club has an option to purchase Finch Farm every 5 years, the last of which was 2017 and wasn't exercised, the next is 2022.
Since purchase the council has spent £4 million on improvements and raised the rent by 3% as a result.
243 Posted 16/04/2018 at 12:16:16
244 Posted 16/04/2018 at 15:07:52
They make no sense. On those figures EFC would be paying £40 million on a so-called low interest loan. The figures make no sense and, until you give us an origin where these figures can be checked, they mean nothing.
Brent Stevens no I don't accept this answer until my above question is answered.
245 Posted 16/04/2018 at 15:23:43
1) You state that building work cost £4 million yet the rent was only raised 3%?
2) If the deal is not a winner for EFC why did they not purchase the property, after 5 years?
Sponsorship of the project would have made it easy to buy the land. Why not? It's too much of a good thing, that's why.
246 Posted 16/04/2018 at 15:51:19
£200k profit to the City out of £1.2M payments each year? Sounds like a good deal for the City... and must be a good deal for EFC too.
Is Joe still cheating the ratepayers or have you been lying to us all along?
247 Posted 16/04/2018 at 17:04:46
The problem with all these schemes is they are always looking for something for nothing and up to now the Kings Dock and Kirkby have produced nothing. The Games would have got EFC a Stadium at Croxteth, but, no, they had to go for the money shot.
They have no vision hoping for freebies when they could make their own certainties. Instead of continually trying to get free rides Goodison could have already been rebuilt in the time wasted.
250 Posted 18/04/2018 at 07:07:15
But you're also forgetting that the rent rises are compounded yearly, and you know what Einstein said about compound interest.
And you're also forgetting that the council are not using ratepayers' money, but money from the central government lending fund.
The figures are from the prospectus for the sale of Finch Farm by the way. Easily findable on the world wide web.
MK, it is a £200k profit for the council only for 25 years, the last 15 years of the lease it is £1.2 million profit. Not considering the 2.5% yearly increases, compounded.
251 Posted 18/04/2018 at 07:18:14
We just can't get Steve Taylor to accept that the loan money is a pass-through the council makes a profit on.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
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 Talking Points submissions across the site.