John wrote...

Objective reporting....yep right mark

When did you sign on to the KW private members club.

Don,t worry your in good company with the Echo.

Fair and Balanced what an example to show your staff at the paper with this pro bias story for Kirkby.

Posted by: John  | July 21, 2007 11:34 AM

DannyD wrote...

I am sick of hearing how badly Everton have been treated by the City Council. They have a very short memory, the Kings Dock was a magnificent site for them and I was surprised they won the bid for it given that all the other bids were self financing without the City Council putting its hand in its pocket. They could not raise the £30m to see the deal through, and that was no surprise was it at no time when it was going belly up did the council approach Liverpool FC and ask did they want to go into the project sharing the stadium.

While LFC were sorting out a new home they where put under enormous pressure to bail Everton out with a ground share, now we hear Bradley a Bitter Blue bemoans the fact that the balance of fan ration in the city would swing massively towards the Reds, wasn’t he around on the night of 26th May 2005. The council we are told has been bending over backwards to ensure Everton get the best deal possible for themselves while every inch of LFCs plans for Stanley Park has had to be fought out tooth and nail.

Everton have only one ambition in their plans, what’s best for them. In contrast the New Anfield sets off European funding for the Anfield area and encompasses major community projects instigated and funded by the club in line with LFCs policy of giving something back to the city. Let them go to Kirkby and good riddance, Oh! and could someone tell Mr Wyness Kirkby was around long before Liverpool became a city and the people from Scotty forced out to there by the City Council.

Posted by: DannyD  | July 21, 2007 11:49 AM

tony wrote...

If I've ever seen a more one-sided article as this is, I can't recall it. Maybe you believe there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Maybe you believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden? I don't know, but if you believe this: "Thanks to the involvement of Knowsley and Tesco, it is hard to imagine a more financially favourable stadium development plan from the club's point of view. Getting a state-of-the-art new stadium while taking on virtually no debt would be the envy of many in top flight football," then I think you may need help. Tesco are renowned for being ruthless and kmbc for being "untruth-tellers". Efc is taking a risk akin to jumping in a sea full of great whites. I'm sure you've heard the phrases: "nothing is for free" and "if it looks too good to be true, then it usually is"

You never once mentioned the views or concerns of kirkby residents and whether they'd like a 50,000 seater stadium dumped in the middle of a residential area. You should be ashamed of yourself.

As for kirkby being in liverpool, I and many, many residents claim to be scousers, but cannot with hand on heart say we are from liverpool. Ask knowsley council if kirkby is in liverppol and tell me your reply

regards

Posted by: tony  | July 21, 2007 2:10 PM

Tim K wrote...

Shockingly the editor of The Post agrees with the move. I'd never have guessed from the fawning coverage you have given it.......
Why no questions to Mr Wyness about:
(a) The ACTUAL cost of the move, Mr Wyness has said £50m, £75m and now £150m. He has tried to compare the total costs of the project to the stadium only costs of the Arsenal stadium which is disingenous to say the least. Why has this not be challenged?
(b) Any studies on the eroision of our fanbase. If this is a pure "business" move then why move to a location away from the majority of your customers?
(c) Why not get Mr Wyness and Cllr Bradley to do a head to head interview rather than bad mouthing eachother via your paper. If there has been a request and it has been turned down who refused the offer and why?

Posted by: Tim K  | July 22, 2007 11:03 AM

Phil Smart wrote...

Mr Thomas,
You make a lot of valid and interesting points in your blog but there is one which I wish to take issue with.
You claim that "Getting a state-of-the-art new stadium while taking on virtually no debt would be the envy of many in top flight football, including the club's Anfield neighbours," is so absurd it is almost untrue.
You are clearly an educated and intelligent man who takes a great deal of interest in the local business scene so how you came up with such a ridiculous statement is beyond me.
If the deal Everton have in place with Tesco is so good that it would make others envious, why aren't other Premiership clubs pursuing similar deals?
If the move to Kirkby does take place then Everton will be taking on less debt than those clubs who are financing the building of their own stadia.
But in return these clubs get to take control of their own destiny and choose the area in which they build their new ground.
The deal Everton have in place with Tesco means they have to sacrifice their roots in the city of Liverpool and move to a location at the behest of Tesco.
The debt issue is an interesting one also because clearly Liverpool FC will be in a much better position to service their debt because of their status, higher capacity, bigger fan base and the fact that their stadium will be in the city of Liverpool.
And besides, did it not occur to you that if Everton's deal with Tesco is so good that it will make others envious that bigger clubs than the Blues would be better placed to make similar deals with other large businesses?
Or do you really believe that Kenwright and Wyness are so clever that they have stolen a march on every other top flight club?
The move to Kirkby is borne out of nothing but desperation. Desperation to survive, desperation to compete and desperation to have a new stadium despite not having the money in place to build one without the assistance of Tesco.
I don't think any other club, particularly Liverpool, will really be envious of such desperation, do you?

Posted by: Phil Smart  | July 22, 2007 5:14 PM

Brad Jones wrote...

I absolutely agree with what you say. What is all the fuss about Kirkby not being in Liverpool? It's as scouse as it comes.
We simply need to move, there are no viable options in Liverpool and staying at Goodison would be the downfall of the club into the lower divisions. (Wyness stated last week, they have spent £500,000 on keeping Goodison up to standard in the last year or so. In 5 years he also said it could struggle to even gain a safety certificate.) Im sure none of us wants a poor team with no ground.
And in the unlikeliness of finding a suitable site in Liverpool, we firstly don't have the economic power. The move to Kirkby is giving us a brand new stadium for next to nothing in cash. Grasp the moment and move, for the good of the club

Posted by: Brad Jones  | July 22, 2007 8:31 PM

Andy Loyden wrote...

Dear Mark,

"a relief for the Everton hierarchy to finally be able to put their side of the argument." If only! The Everton board have told us(the fans) nothing. They have not explained why, they can't redevelop Goodison, only that it is to dear. They have not told us the economic reasons why the land LCC has offered cannot be developed for the same costings. They havn't told us about a new director being brought on to the board 5 weeks ago. They cannot even decide between the CEO and the communications officer, how many Evertonians will be eligable to vote or if the vote is binding. Are these any reasons to trust them, without asking serious questions.

"Getting a state-of-the art new stadium" No we won't, in Mr Wyness' own words, we will be getting a " good premiership club ground". Not what we were told earlier.

"One point that I believe ought to be dismissed out of hand, though, is the ridiculous notion that the stadium should not be in Kirkby because it would mean the club moving out of Liverpool."
I think it's the fact, in that it is so far away from town, which is the problem. At the moment Liverpool FC are a bigger and wealthier club than Everton, and in the business terms that everyone seems so fond of these days, we are in direct competition with them, thus we need to be a significant prescence in the city and not on the outskirts. If you look at all the Liverpool08 literature, we are already an after thought in comparison to LFC. How much worse would this be if Everton were based in kirkby?
By the way Speke is just as bad as Kirkby to me!

kind regards

Andy

Posted by: Andy Loyden  | July 22, 2007 11:21 PM

Bernie O'Keeffe wrote...

There's more chance of Riquelme joining Brett Angell stacking shelves in Tescos than playing for Everton.
Mr Wyness spoke about Kirby being deliverable. Everton have a track record of not delivering, NTL, KIngs Dock and Fortress Sports Fund being the most high profile examples

Posted by: Bernie O'Keeffe  | July 23, 2007 8:16 AM

ejruane wrote...

In my opinion, your 'argument' has one fundamental flaw.

The same flaw shared by many of those who argue for a move to Kirkby.

You are applying logic to what is an emotional debate.

Yet when those with a different opinion argue logic, you argue from an emotional standpoint.

Well, it's bogus and more importantly, obvious.

We (those against a move to Kirkby) DO understand that the people of Kirkby, Hutyon (and the bit of Halewood under Knowsly) are scousers.

However it's not about where supporters are from, but where EVERTON are from.

Emotional? Illogical?

Absolutely!

However, if you want to argue logic, try these three.

1) If you are constantly let down and lied to by a group of people, is it logical to believe them when they say "Yes but THIS time we know what we're doing!"?

2) If you have 35,000-38.000 regular customers, is it logical to take a decision to move and possibly lose a number of them forever, when you have ABSOLUTELY no proof you can replace them.

3) Is it logical to build a ground with 55,000 seats when you can't regularly fill a stadium with 40,000?

There are a lot of logical questions I've heard asked by people opposed to the move and when they're asked, all the 'Mr Logics' suddenly argue the totally illogical, emotional "Yeah but if you're a blue you'll follow them wherever they play"

You can't have it both ways (certainly not with me!).

If Everton move to Kirkby, I will not be made to feel guilty and duped into thinking it's ME being disloyal (by not buying a season ticket).

The blame will rest with those (proven) bums 'in charge' for leaving L4.

Posted by: ejruane  | July 23, 2007 11:05 AM

Tony Cleary wrote...

Goodison used to be the most impressive ground in the country, but sadly it is now a dump. It can't be turned into a top class modern stadium for at least 2 obvious reasons: 1) the site is too restricted, an unsuitable shape, and impossible to expand without difficult compulsory purchases; 2) Everton will have to play somewhere during the rebuilding and if it is at Goodison, the club's finances will have to cope with the inevitably reduced capacity.

As to the City of Liverpool red herring, when I was a conductor on the 500s I went from one end of Liverpool (Speke) to the other (Kirkby) - I don't remember any border controls! Anyway, Everton lost the Liverpool indentity when the club moved from Anfield and the rump who stayed behind took the city's name - I can't count the number of times I've been asked why, as I come from Liverpool, do I support Everton? And my answer has never been because Everton play in Walton rather than in Kirkby! The fact is that Everton belong in that exclusive group of club's whose names give no indication of their home city - Aston Villa, West Bromwich Albion and, significantly, all of the London clubs - and who nevertheless still maintain solid support.

Everton need a better stadium now, not another dragged out period of negotiations, and the chances of a better deal than this look very slim. I'm not too happy with the Tesco connection, but it's no worse than being bought by others I could mention in the Premiership. The design on offer looks great,especially as it takes maintaining the atmosphere as a priority, though it's time we saw some information about its carbon footprint. If Evertonians really want the club to be great again, we've got to support this move.

Posted by: Tony Cleary  | July 23, 2007 11:20 AM

PaulC wrote...

Why are you local media not asking the hard questions:

- What research have Everton done into the effect of moving to Kirkby upon the fanbase short mid and long term?

- What average crowd would we need to generate the "extra 10m a season"? What changes to ticket costs are part of that calculation?

- What justification can Everton give to miving further from the city centre? Are they aware of the fact that such a trend was reversed in the USA when it was found that sports clubs and their stadiums were far better suited to a central location?

- Why cant CEO and chairman speak from the same page re the vote being binding?

- Why the constant moving goalposts re costings last week? One minute 50m, then 75m then 150m. All this after Mr Wyness initially claimed putting an accurate figure on things was impossible! If there is no accurate figure how can they know what they are going to build?!?

- Will the fans see detailed architectural plans before the vote, rather than artist impressions. ( By the way, if you think our artist impressions were good you should see the ones Coventry fans were given for their Ricoh stadium! Go figure. )

- Have the major shareholders of Everton received any serious interest in the club from potential buyers over the last couple of years? Would they not consider selling to someone who could invest in a better option than Kirkby - perhaps the loop or even Goodison itself?

Posted by: PaulC  | July 23, 2007 11:25 AM

Preno wrote...

I'll let you know what I think Mark - your a pretty weak journo if that last paragraph is your attempt at balanced reporting - sad, I remember when the Post & Echo were broadsheet - and acted like it.

Thankfully - v few are gullible enough to swallow this KW inspired rubbish.

Posted by: Preno  | July 23, 2007 11:28 AM

Dave Thompson wrote...

In the initial interview with Wyness when the details were first released, the make up of the deal was expressed using this statement:

"The land in Kirkby is currently regarded as worthless, but with planning permission for a Tesco store and shopping complex, which will be half the size of the Trafford Centre, the value will rocket to £50m.

The supermarket giant will pay that price to Knowsley Council and the money will be made as a contribution towards the cost of the stadium."

As soon as the uproar went up about what kind of stadium you would get for £75M or £50M (thanks to some remarkable discount!), the estimate was revised to £150M. This counted the £50M for the worthless land, and counted it again for the stadium - creative accounting on an Enron scale!

And yet....the Liverpool Daily Post and the Liverpool Echo never once questioned Keith Wyness on the discrepancy.

Is there any possibility of objective reporting on this issue, or did Everton's full page colour ad for Season tickets in last week's Echo come with strings attached?

Posted by: Dave Thompson  | July 23, 2007 11:33 AM

George Gibbons wrote...

Share - share - share. The only viable alternative for EFC rather than become a backdrop to a Chain Store is to share with LFC. No one is going to pump new money in, perhaps Mr Leahy may agree to pay to share a new super stadium, however is it too late for Liverpool's new owners or is this, I fancy, why they are delaying themselves? This is the only way of keeping our City united as unique Football Brothers.

Posted by: George Gibbons  | July 23, 2007 12:19 PM

Jeremy Wyke wrote...

"let me know what you think"

I think that as a journalist, and as one in a position of influence, that your journalistic impartiality is non existent.

Do you write this as a representative of the Daily Post, as a representative of Everton Football Club, or as someone who has been pressured into spinning the club's propaganda for them ?

You should make it clear.

One last thing, I'd really rather like one of you press people - to get in touch, and actually have a discussion with me to give your reasons for pushing the move so forcefully and actively.

It's one thing making sweeping unfounded, unproven statements that appear to be facts, when no one is there to actually personally challenge them.

It's another to do it when someone is proving your wrong.

Posted by: Jeremy Wyke  | July 23, 2007 1:29 PM

Marko Poutiainen wrote...

There are a number of questions I'd like to have answers to:
1. What is the REAL cost of the stadium to Everton Football Club?
2. What is the business case for the move? Where and how much will extra income come? I want more detail than just "up to 10 million extra".
3. Is it really apt for a club of Everton's pedigree that a construction company designs the new stadium instead of an architect? Archibald Leitch and all that.
4. What is the role of Robert Earl, who was recently promoted to the Board, in all this? How much will he and the other Board members benefit personally from the move? As far as we know, his only input to the club so far has been to bring Sylvester Stallone over for a match. Now, on the eve of the biggest decision this club has done for over a hundred years he is suddenly elected to the Board.
5. How on Earth can Tesco get Barr to give a 25 million discount on the building costs? It would be hard for a construction company to get that sort of money back because in effect it would mean taking a loss on the project.

Posted by: Marko Poutiainen  | July 23, 2007 2:42 PM

jane wrote...

it is starting to look like a done deal before the kirkby community and everton fans (the major stakeholders) have been consulted. efc going outside liverpool isnt a big issue, but i do think the sustainability of another out of town shopping centre is. with the paradise st development and speke already providing huge amounts of retail in the area is more really feasible?

Posted by: jane  | July 23, 2007 2:46 PM

Andy wrote...

So you're saying we'll see Riquelme playing for Everton if we move to Kirkby ? Or that we won't see any decent players, like Arteta or Johnson, playing for Everton if we don't move to Kirkby ? Sounds like another wonderful line of propoganda coming out of Goodison Park. I can't help wondering whether they paid you to write this rubbish or not.

Posted by: Andy  | July 23, 2007 3:07 PM

Jay Connolly wrote...

"Would you rather watch a Riquelme in Kirkby, or a Brett Angel in Speke?"

How much are you being paid to write garbage like this? Unbelievable.

Posted by: Jay Connolly  | July 23, 2007 4:43 PM

Wilf Cuff wrote...

What a dispicable article.

You should be ashamed of yourself for such a fawning, biased and patronising piece of writing.

Why don't you and your cronies at the Liverpool Echo actually live up to the word "Journalist" and do some investigation into why Everton are once again scratching around the bargain bins looking for players, or presenting a "choice" as no-choice at all? Why don't you investigate how the powers that be have sat and done nothing since Peter Johnson first mooted moving to Cronton?

Why don't you ask the CEO what exactly it is Everton have done to Goodison Park that has cost 500,000 pounds? Has the price of blue gravel risen greatly since the end of the season, or are the providers of that seeking their cut of the obnoxious amount of money being thrown at clubs by Sky TV?

Surely any of that would be better than tugging your forelocks at the powers that be at Goodison Park, or is the contract to produce the match programme really worth that much to your owners?

Posted by: Wilf Cuff  | July 23, 2007 6:44 PM

SheedysLeftFoot wrote...

Though the subject matter may not be comparable, the journalistic style is certainly reminiscent of Mohammed Said al-Sahaf - the former Iraqi Information Minister. Its lack of subtlety does at least it expose the lack of impartiality we can expect from the self-interested local press on this issue. Propaganda disguised as opinion – shame on you.

Posted by: SheedysLeftFoot  | July 24, 2007 2:18 AM

Liverpolitan wrote...

Surely it would be better for the Daily Post to argue for the abolition of Knowsley and it's jobs for the boys councillors.

Posted by: Liverpolitan  | March 18, 2008 4:06 PM