A new home for Everton

[Evertonian]

There are two factions at fault here. Everton FC's board of directors and Liverpool City Council.


Guess-timates put the project at being worth over 40 million pounds to the local ecconomy and suggest over a thousand permanenet jobs and hundreds of temporary jobs will be formed out of this.

If Liverpool City Council are happy for this level of capital to be lost to the city to another borough then they are NOT worthy of leading.

I cannot for the life of me understand why 3 or 4 potential sites in Liverpool are not being put forward publicly. There are parts of Vauxhall which could really do with a major revamp and some investment.

LCC seem fairly non-chalant about over 250 million pounds worth of investment going elsewhere.

Basically I think we can all comclude that they've spent all their time and energy in their efforts to shoehorn Everton and Liverpool into a shared stadium.

Simply not good enough for this city.


Everton FC. Where do we start!

Shocking mismanagement of this affair. Do they realise that theres no point building a 55,000 seater if half the fans from the Wirral and inner city Liverpool stop going the game.

This, for a lot of Evertonians, will be the straw that broke the camel's back. Many have publicly stated they will not go the game anymore if the club "surrender" the city to the reds.

I guarantee they'll loose fans....the "market share", if you will, on Merseyside.


The ground should be central to all fans in Liverpool and should be close enough for the tens of thousands of fans that reside over the water. EVERYONE I know wants it to be on the docks....even Liverpudlians have argued it should be there.

Why on earth can they not build with Tesco in Vauxhall or on the docks??? Why can't they approach Peel???

[Pietari]

Blues stadium plan on show in Kirkby May 17 2007

by Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

PLANS of how Everton’s new football stadium will fit into Kirkby will be shown to residents within weeks.

Initial drawings of the possible scheme are now in the hands of senior officials at Knowsley council.

They will be released to the public in mid-June, once councillors formally agree to start asking people’s views about the multi-million pound plan.

The ECHO understands the designs do not show Everton’s possible 55,000-seater ground in any detail.

They only set out how the stadium might fit into the sprawling site south of the town centre, off Cherryfield Drive, along with a Tesco superstore and other shops.

Everton have not yet made a final decision whether to leave Goodison Park and have promised to fully consult fans first.

But the imminent decision to start asking Kirkby residents what they think of the plan, which would transform the town centre and create thousands of jobs, shows how smoothly talks between the club, council and Tesco are going.

Sheena Ramsey, chief executive of Knowsley council, said: “The illustrations reflect what we have been talking about so far.

“We want to know whether the designs reflect what people want in their town centre.”

Everton are holding exclusive talks with Knowsley council and Tesco, despite pleas from some supporters to focus on staying within the city boundaries.

If Knowsley’s cabinet agrees on May 30 to start consulting residents, public events will be held in mid-June.

* WHAT do you think? Have your say on our EFC forum - click here

nick.coligan@liverpool.com

[Tom Hughes]

I believe that Goodison Park is a more than reasonable site, as has been shown in over 100 years of operation, and if no central sites are available then the slow redevelopment option makes a lot of sense. The council have begun to show some latitude regarding planning permission issues, and as only 2 streets abutt Bullens Rd itself there is reason to believe that expansion in this and the Park-end directions is very feasible. As regards moving the club to the city's periphery I believe that this could be disasterous for the club, certainly long term. The public transport provision for Kirkby is roughly 1/10th of that for Walton this is a logistical and demographic constant that cannot be amended by Merseytravel shuffling a few buses every fortnight. In a city of such low car ownership, and with environmental issues in mind this doesn't make much sense. Even by car, the number of traffic lanes crossing the M57 (only a 3 lane carriageway when all said and done) into Kirkby from the main conurbation and concentration of blues is very few, so considering that the vast majority of fans will be travelling in the same direction pre and post match, this small provision will be choked. The novelty of a new stadium will soon be forgotten. Then we will be stuck in a place no one wants to go to.

[Pietari]

Some very good points raised there `Tommy H`, after all if the New Anfield happens and the `Anfield Station` is approved Everton as is, will be sitting pretty for many new faciities anyway.

Welcome to the forum by the way.

[Scarecrow]

You the Tom Hughes from Toffeeweb? Good points. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Tom Hughes]

Quite like the look of Central Docks, there are lots of examples of waterfront Stadia around the world if Peel Holdings wanted a real icon to act as a catalyst for their whole redevelopment of this area, then they won't do any better than a stadium. If not, just inland in Vauxhall as has already been cited, great transport links (Sandhills 50 trains per hour, Kirkby 5). Speke would be just as bad as Kirkby, and longterm could even polarise the city's supporters...... North and south divide(though not likely). Failing those Dockside options, how about Everton Park, or any area between Great Homer street and Everton Brow? There is the obvious context of name, and Prince Rupert's tower etc as an attraction. The Park is after all a complete accident of social engineering and poor urban planning and cannot be compared to Stanley Park. An area that used to boast a population of well over 100,000 is now a ghost town that can barely support a corner shop, so little nuisance factor there. Perhaps even Tesco could be tempted with an edge of city-centre retail development. If it's good enough for Cosco, why not? The close proximity to the downtown area will bring all the obvious transport benefits too. I assume LCC own this plot!

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by Bunnyman

You the Tom Hughes from Toffeeweb? Good points. I agree wholeheartedly.

Have been known to drop in there!

[liverpolitan]

I quite like the idea of one of the two major teams having its grounds outside the city boundaries, it helps rectify any silly mindsets that Liverpool only exists within the boundaries of the city. If it can't be a central or edge-of-centre site - and we all know it could be - then it might as well be Kirkby. Mind you, I'd happily plonk it on the Wirral side, to regenerate Woodside, and that would be more central and easier to get to than Kirkby. It would look stunning at Woodside, with Hamilton Square station and the ferry terminal just minutes away, plus the Mersey Tunnel entrance.

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by liverpolitan

I quite like the idea of one of the two major teams having its grounds outside the city boundaries, it helps rectify any silly mindsets that Liverpool only exists within the boundaries of the city. If it can't be a central or edge-of-centre site - and we all know it could be - then it might as well be Kirkby. Mind you, I'd happily plonk it on the Wirral side, to regenerate Woodside, and that would be more central and easier to get to than Kirkby. It would look stunning at Woodside, with Hamilton Square station and the ferry terminal just minutes away, plus the Mersey Tunnel entrance.

Think Tranmere would complain about that! Unfortunately the Wirral is a separate entity..... geographically and almost ethnically, don't the tranmere fans sing about not being scousers or some such? Liverpool's not like London, Dublin or Glasgow, the city doesn't bridge the river...... maybe that's the solution, and another thread: Build a Bridge. Out of town could marginalise the club, and change how it is perceived forever..... a serious dilution of identity....... anyone know what happened to the 1988 FA Cup winners? Wimbledon I think they were called, heard they fancied going out of town. (OK I'm stretching the analogy)

[Pietari]

Not that Milton kean myself ......

[paulmac35]

Originally Posted by Tom Hughes

Think Tranmere would complain about that! Unfortunately the Wirral is a separate entity..... geographically and almost ethnically, don't the tranmere fans sing about not being scousers or some such? Liverpool's not like London, Dublin or Glasgow, the city doesn't bridge the river...... maybe that's the solution, and another thread: Build a Bridge. Out of town could marginalise the club, and change how it is perceived forever..... a serious dilution of identity....... anyone know what happened to the 1988 FA Cup winners? Wimbledon I think they were called, heard they fancied going out of town. (OK I'm stretching the analogy)

Whether they like it or not Birkenhead, Wallasey and the rest of Wirral are scousers (ethnically if you like!), in a way most people from southport or St Helens arnt. They speak with a scouse accent (to varying strengths just like on this side), and the vast majority of wirralians (what a horrible expression!) have Liverpool ancestry. I have two sisters living over there myself. i bet most of us on the this side of the water have relatives (who have bettered themselves) and moved over to Hoylake, Greasby, Wallasey, and the like. This is what bugs me about some people (not the majority) from the Wirral. They are happy to work in the city centre but like to drive back through the tunnel at 5 oclock and distance themselves from Liverpool. Well they cant have their cake and eat it.

Taking an example that best matches our own. i.e. a river seperating two big connurbations, you wont hear geordies from Gateshead saying, we are not from Newcastle, we are from Gateshead. Nope they say Newcastle and are rightly proud of it. i dont know why it is so different here.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Tom Hughes

Quite like the look of Central Docks, there are lots of examples of waterfront Stadia around the world if Peel Holdings wanted a real icon to act as a catalyst for their whole redevelopment of this area, then they won't do any better than a stadium. If not, just inland in Vauxhall as has already been cited, great transport links (Sandhills 50 trains per hour, Kirkby 5). Speke would be just as bad as Kirkby, and longterm could even polarise the city's supporters...... North and south divide(though not likely). Failing those Dockside options, how about Everton Park, or any area between Great Homer street and Everton Brow? There is the obvious context of name, and Prince Rupert's tower etc as an attraction. The Park is after all a complete accident of social engineering and poor urban planning and cannot be compared to Stanley Park. An area that used to boast a population of well over 100,000 is now a ghost town that can barely support a corner shop, so little nuisance factor there. Perhaps even Tesco could be tempted with an edge of city-centre retail development. If it's good enough for Cosco, why not? The close proximity to the downtown area will bring all the obvious transport benefits too. I assume LCC own this plot!

It's highly unlikely that a new stadium would permitted in Everton or even Vauxhall. The mistake people are making is pinointing an area of land here or there and saying that's a good spot.The city's Unitary Development plan designates what will be allowed to be built in specific areas,these areas are zoned:residential,mixed residential,industrial,commercial etc.The bureaucratic intransigence on this can perfectly highlighted with Brunswick Tower,a truly outstanding proposal that was blocked because it fell into area designated for mixed industrial use. The egos of these bureaucrats,planners and councillors konw no bounds and some of them even seem to enjoy their little power games with developers.Personally i found it amazing that the city council could only come up with 4 potential sites for a new stadium,in a city of 43sq miles! this is down to the Unitary Development Plan,something that was compliled by planners and councillors and is of such an example of human intelligence and vision,that it CANNOT be altered.

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

It's highly unlikely that a new stadium would permitted in Everton or even Vauxhall. The mistake people are making is pinointing an area of land here or there and saying that's a good spot.The city's Unitary Development plan designates what will be allowed to be built in specific areas,these areas are zoned:residential,mixed residential,industrial,commercial etc.The bureaucratic intransigence on this can perfectly highlighted with Brunswick Tower,a truly outstanding proposal that was blocked because it fell into area designated for mixed industrial use. The egos of these bureaucrats,planners and councillors konw no bounds and some of them even seem to enjoy their little power games with developers.Personally i found it amazing that the city council could only come up with 4 potential sites for a new stadium,in a city of 43sq miles! this is down to the Unitary Development Plan,something that was compliled by planners and councillors and is of such an example of human intelligence and vision,that it CANNOT be altered.

What does it say in the Unitary Development plan about building on a grade II listed Victorian park right in the middle of a densely packed residential area? Not so long ago it was taken for granted that EFC would not get planning permission to expand, suddenly it would appeat that it is not the case. My feelings are that if Peel Holdings wanted to build a stadium they could. There are too many redundent sites in the city for anyone to justify not building a stadium on them provided all the usual criteria were met. Everton Park is a wasteland for all intents and purposes.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Tom Hughes

What does it say in the Unitary Development plan about building on a grade II listed Victorian park right in the middle of a densely packed residential area? Not so long ago it was taken for granted that EFC would not get planning permission to expand, suddenly it would appeat that it is not the case. My feelings are that if Peel Holdings wanted to build a stadium they could. There are too many redundent sites in the city for anyone to justify not building a stadium on them provided all the usual criteria were met. Everton Park is a wasteland for all intents and purposes.

The point i'm making is the 4 sites proposed by Bradley were taken from guidance in the UDP and he and the planning dept were sticking rigidly to it.The example of Brunswick tower highlighted the intransigence on these issues.Everton Park is earmarked as open space/leisure.Any site that isn't designated commercial/leisure would have to overcome a number of hurdles and most probably a public enquiry.The new Anfield had to overcome tese issues,how long has it taken,6 or 7 years? You have to face the facts mate,it's how local government works.I don't agree with it and it's wrong that the club are being treated like any other commercial enterprise.Redeveloping Goodison wouldn't be a major departure from the UDP as it's already in place,but we all know that's a non-starter because pauper Bill wants somebody else to build the ground for him.

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

The point i'm making is the 4 sites proposed by Bradley were taken from guidance in the UDP and he and the planning dept were sticking rigidly to it.The example of Brunswick tower highlighted the intransigence on these issues.Everton Park is earmarked as open space/leisure.Any site that isn't designated commercial/leisure would have to overcome a number of hurdles and most probably a public enquiry.The new Anfield had to overcome tese issues,how long has it taken,6 or 7 years? You have to face the facts mate,it's how local government works.I don't agree with it and it's wrong that the club are being treated like any other commercial enterprise.Redeveloping Goodison wouldn't be a major departure from the UDP as it's already in place,but we all know that's a non-starter because pauper Bill wants somebody else to build the ground for him.

I think Liverpool had initial planning permission in place years ago, the problems they had was they couldn't meet the escalating costs to finally secure all the additional funding that will be required, it was them stalling, not the council, they were repeatedly asked to prove they had the readies.... ultimately, having to sell up to do so! Agreed about BK.

[Toadboy]

Isn't that the crux though Tom - funding.

The big issue is how any redevelopment of Goodison or a relocation would be financed, enter Tesco.

It's not really about sites or rebuilding Goodison it's about paying for it.

[Scarecrow]

Even if it takes 20 years to redevelop fully, it'll be worth it.

Stage 1: Rip down the Park End and throw up a 3 tier stand on the same size footprint as the Gwladys Street stand, with the second tier covering the same footprint as the existing Bullens Rd. Probably take the best part of a year to build, capacity would be down to around 34,000 for a season (although the tiers could be reopened upon completion like the new end at Twickenham). End of the year, capacity would be around 48,000 with a steeply raked 3-tier Park End. Stand capacity ~14,000

Stage 2: Demolition of Bullens Rd and creation of a two tier stand continuing on from rebuilt Park End tiers 1 & 2. Could progress either immediately after Park End completion, or once Park End has paid for its construction (5-6 years?). Capacity would drop back down to the 40,000 mark for a season, and top out at approx 49-50,000 upon completion. Possibility of third tier to be added at later stage should extra capacity be neccessary.

Stage 3: Demolition & reconstruction of Gwladys Street to mirror Park End stand. Either when stages 1 & 2 have paid for themselves, or following completion of stage 2. Capacity would drop to around 38,000 minimum, but with tiers opening on completion, could feasably reach 44,000 before start of season. Stand capacity ~14,000, giving a conservative initial capacity of approx 52,000 (possibly 56,000 depending on size of goal ends).

Long term: Possibility of third tier being added to Bullens Road stand depending on purchase of property behind said stand. Re-roofing of Main Stand and removal of most of the obstructive pillars.

Cost: Fuck knows. Perhaps Prof. Hughes can have a go at that?
Other problems; Everton FC! Shadowing of pitch/adjacent properties due to steep rake of stands. Liverpool Shitty Council. Transport issues (should be sorted with new RS dome)

Something similar to this, albeit better quality and with a roof.

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

Isn't that the crux though Tom - funding.

The big issue is how any redevelopment of Goodison or a relocation would be financed, enter Tesco.

It's not really about sites or rebuilding Goodison it's about paying for it.

Funding is the major issue, however the whole thing's a moving target, there are clubs being bought all the time, the council's showing more interest than ever before, and there's more Sky money every season. This all tends to suggest that there could well be financial opportunities in the very near future. In which case, the urgency to move should not really exist.

One possible suggestion......Even taking into account a significant stadium expansion there is sufficient space at the Park-end to incorporate a hotel development *.... Perhaps sponsorship for a new Park end could come from that angle. Bite size developments within an holistic approach should be the name of our game.

BTW....Does anyone really believe that Tesco are going to build our nirvanna for nothing?

*Remember reading that Liverpool only had half the number of hotel rooms anticipated to be required for post 2008, and we could always charge double for Norwegians going the superbowl.

[Tom Hughes]

"Stage 1: Rip down the Park End and throw up a 3 tier stand on the same size footprint as the Gwladys Street stand, with the second tier covering the same footprint as the existing Bullens Rd. Probably take the best part of a year to build, capacity would be down to around 34,000 for a season (although the tiers could be reopened upon completion like the new end at Twickenham). End of the year, capacity would be around 48,000 with a steeply raked 3-tier Park End. Stand capacity ~14,000"

Need a bigger footprint than the current St End to yield 14,000 seats, the current one only holds c.11,000, and thats with full overlapping of tiers, not possible without obstructions. That said, move the pitch 13 metres away from the St end, and there'll be sufficient space, and the pitch will then be central to the mainstand (killing 2 birds), and you will be able to build your 2 big end stands. Prefer 2 tiers though, get a nice big crowd directly under the roof.



"Stage 2: Demolition of Bullens Rd and creation of a two tier stand continuing on from rebuilt Park End tiers 1 & 2. Could progress either immediately after Park End completion, or once Park End has paid for its construction (5-6 years?). Capacity would drop back down to the 40,000 mark for a season, and top out at approx 49-50,000 upon completion. Possibility of third tier to be added at later stage should extra capacity be neccessary."

Have you been looking at my drawings?

"Stage 3: Demolition & reconstruction of Gwladys Street to mirror Park End stand. Either when stages 1 & 2 have paid for themselves, or following completion of stage 2. Capacity would drop to around 38,000 minimum, but with tiers opening on completion, could feasably reach 44,000 before start of season. Stand capacity ~14,000, giving a conservative initial capacity of approx 52,000 (possibly 56,000 depending on size of goal ends).

Long term: Possibility of third tier being added to Bullens Road stand depending on purchase of property behind said stand. Re-roofing of Main Stand and removal of most of the obstructive pillars."

Yes, you deffo have

"Cost: Fuck knows. Perhaps Prof. Hughes can have a go at that?"

Having probs doing just that as we speak

[Scarecrow]

Were they yours on Toffeeweb? It was a combination of that article, and a look at some of the old GfE stuff (although I thought there was far too much wasted space in the corners of their 'proposal', considering useable space is at a premium).

RE: Gwladys St end. Looking side on at the street end it seems that the upper tier is some considerable way back from the pavement. It is stepped from the outside to the inside, meaning the back of the upper tier is approximately 8-10m short of the possible building line



Perhaps something similar to what the shite did with the Anfield Road stand could be implemented, although on a much grander scale, and without the wobbling and need for pillars?

I reckon something flush with the pavement (or even cantilevered over the street) built as high as possible, could at the very least equal the current St. End capacity. We don't need or want executive boxes there. Just cram as many seats as possible in with unobstructed views, and increase the number of bogs and Chang sellers.