Kenny Fogarty wrote...

You are entitled to express an opinion, but an opinion that is based on fantasy isn't worth a carrot at the end of the day, is it?

Glib comments like "Riquelme at Kirkby or Angell at Goodison" aren't based on any form of fact, they consititute like more than crude scaremongering.

In your position as editor of a regional newspaper, I think you can, and should do a lot better than follow the company line and peddle out the spin and mis-information that eminates from within Goodison Park.

Posted by: Kenny Fogarty  | July 23, 2007 7:37 PM

Alan Smith wrote...

Oh Dear...oh dear....

So it appears that access journalism extends to tea and biscuits with Kieth and the club handing out press releases from to the paper.

No hard questions but everything taken on face value therefore everything must be true.

Editor Opinion instead of hard questions.

"The best deal on offer and the only deal" was that in the press release passed to you by the club.

Allowing your paper to become a a means to an end for the club is not good practice and neither fair and balanced to your readership.

Posted by: Alan Smith  | July 24, 2007 7:21 AM

Andy wrote...

Where's the better deal ? An excellent question. Everton made it impossible to pursue alternative deals by entering into an exclusivity agreement with Knowsley council - the entire purpose being to concentrate on that one site alone. There are sites in Liverpool as have already been proposed by the LCC. There are members of the Everton board with the financial clout to make that happen, with or without the limited resources of our chairman. Tesco isn't the only business partner in the world who I am sure would be willing to work with Everton.

You speak about Everton, if they don't move to Kirkby, being resigned to a state of "gradual but inevitable declineas the rest of the Premiership gallops ahead in terms of resources." There's nothing to suggest that a new stadium in Kirkby will provide any significant resources beyond the £10 million quoted by Keith Wyness, which is barely significant in terms of the transfer fees most players have moved for this summer. The reason why Everton will suffer gradual decline in terms of resources is two fold - firstly, the chairman/owner of the club doesn't have the financial clout for us to compete a the same level and secondly, there are members on the board who contribute barely anything. Take Robert Earl, for instance - what role does he have in providing an injection of cash to the club ? I'd be very interested to know. Our own chairman himself has conceded this very point, claiming that he is seeking investment 24/7 - meanwhile, other less attractive propositions around the Premiership (Portsmouth, Aston Villa, etc.) are having no such difficulty finding investment. Something that doesn't make a lot of sense and it isn't exclusively down to our stadium that we're struggling to find investment, of that I'm absolutely convinced.

We incorrectly describe football as a business. Well, if it was there would be countless Premiership clubs out of business right now and most of those would be the top few, highly successful clubs. Chelsea turned over a massive £80million annual loss recently. If it were a business it would be bankrupt. It relies on a massive handout by its owner to clear that debt in one sweep and that, I'm afraid, is why Everton will suffer decline financially. Nothing to do with a stadium.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a stadium move to Kirkby will enhance the position or status of Everton at all. We'd be moving away from the city in which the vast majority of our fan base live. Like it or not, Kirkby is not in Liverpool. If it were, it would fall under the juristiction of LCC - it doesn't, it isn't in Liverpool.

There was a time when Bill Kenwright stated that the club would only move to a world class stadium. With due respect to the recent design that the club unveiled, this is not a world class stadium that is being proposed. It's a stadium that will soon be inferior to the stadia of many of the top Premiership teams and be comparible only alongside the smaller Premiership teams like Reading, Wigan or Bolton. Given the broken promise on this issue - alongside other broken promises like Kings Dock (which was a world class stadium) and Fortress Sports Fund, it's hardly surprising that Evertonians are sceptical in the extreme.

Posted by: Andy  | July 24, 2007 10:00 AM

Dave Thompson wrote...

You complain about "shooting the messenger" but the whole point about many of the responses to your first article was that the Daliy Post failed to question any of the obvious discrepancies in the information being put out "by the people at the heart of the stadium move issue".

As journalists, it is your role to report and question, not to simply trot out verbatim press releases from one source. As Editor, it is your responsibility to point your staff in this direction.

Those in favour of Kirkby, including yourself, simply trot out the "show us the alternatives" argument. That doesn't make the case for Kirkby at all.

The reality is that everyone who attends Goodison, for or against Kirkby, knows it's not falling down around our ears. It may not be the best ground in the country any more, but it's not in such a state of disrepair that we have to get out now.

The ballot question is going to be all important, but on the evidence so far, if it said "Do you want to move to a shiny new stadium in Kirkby and win the Champions League or remain in the death trap at Goodison playing Championship football" I wouldn't be surprised, and you wouldn't even question it.

"Riquelme at Kirkby", indeed. Shame on you.

Posted by: Dave Thompson  | July 24, 2007 11:16 AM

Tim K wrote...

The latest figures from your paper indicate Everton will have to contribute around £50m to the cost of this stadium. It is hoped that £35m will be based on the sale of Goodison (for which Mr Wyness expects to earn £15m, is Walton the new Monte Carlo or does this not seem a little optimistic?) and naming rights which he would like around £20-25m for. Again based on what? We may also need another £15m of borrowed money. If we only get £5m for Goodison and £15m (paid over the lifetime of the contract not a lump sum) for naming rights it could be a shortfall of £30m. And that is if the project comes in on cost. To even cover this extra borrowing crowds would have to increase 25% (I've done the figures and can happily provide you with them so you can challenge Mr Wyness), to get anywhere near £10m of revenue (not profit) the stadium income would have to double......
When you were starting out as a journalist was copying and pasting from press releases really what motivated you or was it to find out the information that nobody else knew?

Posted by: Tim K  | July 24, 2007 12:44 PM

Keith wrote...

I am sick to the back teeth of people like Andy so full of negativity about the proposed move, that he can't see that nobody wants us in the city anymore. I can remember when LFC announced their intention to go to stanley park, with the LCCs blessing, there was an announcement from LCC stating that there were no viable sites for EFC within the city boundaries, I didn't see any statement from EFC at the time, asking for sites, the LCC just came out and basically said " we back LFC, go away EFC". Also our new training facility is not in Liverpool either, it's in Halewood, which comes under Knowsley, LFCs academy is also in Kirkby so what's the problem. Do you really think that fans will not go just because it's not in the city anymore, do me a favour and wake up to smell the coffee because if this vote is a no vote, don't come crying when LCC pull the safety certificate on half the ground, and we have to play with a half empty stadium, when we could have been playing in front of 50,000 fans in a brand new stadium.

Posted by: Keith  | July 24, 2007 4:18 PM

James wrote...

"What is more surprising though, is that those who criticise the Kirkby plan so vehemently don't seem to have any coherent suggestions as to a viable alternative. Some would prefer to remain at Goodison whatever the cost. That means a future of gradual but inevitable decline, as the rest of the Premiership gallops ahead in terms of resources."

There isn't a "coherent suggestion" because those against the move aren't a cohesive group. Kirkby is such an unpopular plan that it has managed to make allies of the Goodison re-developers, the majority of those who would support a move, and many of the undecided.

Posted by: James  | July 24, 2007 7:40 PM

Jez C wrote...

Yet again Mark you totally miss the point.
Yours as the local paper should be challenging the statements of Mr Wyness with regards to cost and his assumptions not just reporting what he says - isn't that what journalism is about. Asking questions why Mr Kenwright has remained silent on the issue ?
Unfortunately, just like your sister paper (The Echo) you are too afraid too upset Mr Wyness and Everton.

If we had seen articles asking why Everton's squad had the fewest 1st team players in the premiership and loses 3 or 4 players per season, or asking why David Moyes has spent less than only £10m net in his 5 years instead of nonsense headlines like "Everton in the Top 20 rich list" as well backing up Wyness's deal of the century statements without actually delving into the detail then we may actually read some of your comments with an open mind.
Do you know why the cost of the ground doubled in 2 days from £75m to £150m ? Do you know where everyone is going to park with only 1000 car parking spaces ? Why have reference to the People's Club when they are looking to take the club away from the people ? These are the answers to the questions I and every other Evertonian wants to know - we don't have access to Mr Wyness - even the local radio station have to have recorded questions put to Mr Wyness - you do have access - you should be our mouthpiece
Unfortunately now for you, anyone with half a brain will actually take no notice of what you or the local papers have to say about Everton FC anymore and will just treat it as an extension to the offical website.

I think its ironic that the one of the best articles I've seen on the subject has come from Phil McNulty now that the restrictive shackles of working for the Echo have been removed - I wonder if he would have been allowed to write an article like that if he was not now employed by BBC on line.

Now I don't know if you are an Everton supporter (and that obviously plays a large part) however as a season ticketholder for 30 years the proposed ground move to Kirkby is just plain wrong on every score. The non brainwashed hardcore support don't want it - the kirkby residents don't want and I'd be surprised if Mr Wyness will even be here in 2010 judging by the other jobs he is applying for.

Do you honestly believe that we would be challenging for Champions League places if we move to Kirkby because of out imaginary extra £10m ?
If you do then fair enough - if you don't then please please please say so.

I know its easy for me to have a go at you without right of reply but I am more than willing to have an open debate with you about the merits or otherwise of moving to Kirkby

Posted by: Jez C  | July 24, 2007 8:46 PM

STE MC wrote...

IT SEEMS THAT KEITH {AND PROBABLY THOUSANDS LIKE HIM} CANT SEE PAST A SHINY NEW STADIUM. WHAT MAKES PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT A NEW STADIUM EQUATES TO SUCCESS.IF WE WERE TO GO TO KIRKBY AND WIN THE LEAGUE AND HAVE PROLONGED SUCCESS WE WOULD PROSPER ,IF WE STAYED AT GOODISON AND WON THE LEAGUE AND HAD PROLONGED SUCCESS WE WOULD PROSPER.IF WE MOVED TO KIRKBY AND STRUGGLED OR WENT DOWN WE WOULD WITHER AND DIE,IF WE STAYED AT GOODISON AND STRUGGLED OR WENT DOWN WE WOULD SURVIVE.ISAY HANG ON TO WHAT WE HAVE GOT UNTIL SOMETHING BETTER THAN KIRKBY COMES ALONG,AND IT SURELY WILL,WE SHOULD NOT JUMP AT THE FIRST OFFER THAT COMES ALONG,ESPECIALLY AS THE KIRKBY PLAN DEEP DOWN IS NOT REALLY ABOUT US,LETS BE HONEST.

Posted by: STE MC  | July 24, 2007 9:59 PM

Rolant Ellis wrote...

A journalist should challenge the type of fuzzy figures and woolly thinking being put out by the club.

For example, phrases like "It is hoped Tesco will be able to cash in loyalty points", "the club will be left with probably only the cost of the internal stadium fit-out, which could be as low as £10M" "up to £10M a year extra for the manager" are accepted as gospel. Why do you not ask the club for properly costed options and realistic projections, rather than hopes, probably, could be and up to?

One other phrase:

"Mr Wyness said he could not put an accurate figure on the overall costs of the project".

How can anyone vote for the proposed move if the Club itself has no idea whether we will benefit?

Posted by: Rolant Ellis  | July 24, 2007 11:23 PM

wayne hughes wrote...

Just because you are told by the club that this is the best option available doesn't make it so try doing a but of investigative journalism for once why not ask why if the plans were drawn up in detail over a year ago are we only being drip fed 2nd rate images it’s not hard it just needs a bit of effort.

Challenge the back of a fag packet cost and benefit estimates, ask what the assumptions of benefit are based upon, look at the companies accounts ask which was more benefit to the club the alleged £500K maintenance cost of Goodison or the fact of Wyness;s £650K bonus pay packet. (the £650K is in the accounts the £500K is a sound bite)

Also why not do a comparative article about Coventry’s ground highlighting the massive gaps between what was promised by Tesco’s and what was delivered.

Simon Inglis one of the if not the worlds leading expert on football stadiums has expressed grave doubts about Everton’s plans why isn’t this reported?

If you haven’t read Simons well thought out words well put the kettle on print this out read through it and hopefully realize how short you fall in your responsibilities.

"By leaving the city of Liverpool, the directors of Everton FC will forever break the duopoly that has characterised professional football in Liverpool since 1892. This will not only permanently alter the character of Everton, but also of the city as a whole. The proximity of Goodison and Anfield is a defining part of the city's heritage, and a symbol of how allegiances to both clubs are rooted in cultural factors rather than geographical ones.

If I were an Everton fan, before signing up to the Kirkby proposals I would want to see clearly defined evidence that Goodison Park is no longer viable, and that all possible alternative sites within the city have been studied.
If such evidence is not made publicly available then no supporter can hope to make a properly informed judgement.

Many clubs that have relocated in recent years, such as Bolton, Derby, Southampton and Sunderland, have not suffered from an acute loss of local identity, simply because they have no immediate neighbours. The case of Manchester City cannot be compared with Everton because City's new stadium was publicly funded. Similarly, Arsenal's new stadium is within the same London borough, and involved a move of less than one mile.

It is my belief that by relocating to Kirkby, the character and constituency of Everton would undoubtedly be forever changed. Everton fans must decide whether that is an eventuality that they embrace, or one they dread.
Put it like this, if a similar proposal were put forward for my club, Aston Villa, I would be extremely worried." 
(Simon Inglis 23/07/2007)

Posted by: wayne hughes  | July 25, 2007 12:15 AM

toffee rapper wrote...

Mark,

it seems you have given the floor to the KEIOC! Lets face it, if they will resort to scaring OAPs with frightening vision of football hooliganism, they are gonna jump all over the opportunity to create fear about the move on just about every online forum and blog. I can only hope and pray they are part of the Un-silent Minority.

Posted by: toffee rapper  | July 29, 2007 10:57 PM