Call for EGM from Shareholders

a2b chris · July 2, 2008

i agree, everyone has the right to an opinion, but we all (me included) must try to listen objectivly to all points.

just want it sorted, one way or another, so we can all get on with supporting our team

coyney · July 2, 2008

a2b chris said:
i agree, everyone has the right to an opinion, but we all (me included) must try to listen objectivly to all points.

just want it sorted, one way or another, so we can all get on with supporting our team

Nice Idea Chris but sadly every thing concerning Kirkby gets twisted and normally placid people blow their tops on both side of the argument.

a2b chris · July 2, 2008

coyney said:
Nice Idea Chris but sadly every thing concerning Kirkby gets twisted and normally placid people blow their tops on both side of the argument.

i know, but i have to admit, i have been one. know i just want us all back together

SweetHomeGoodison · July 2, 2008

HalewoodBlue said:
Were only paying 78m for kirkby, and at a conservative estimate 6mths ago redeveloping GP was 150m so like kirkby that will have risen as well (My source for this figure? Ask Fat Clueless Dave Kelly of keioc), while your at it ask him if bernie ecclestone has called him yet on his everton ringtone mobile
Am sure with this figure you can do the math as to why it would take longer to clear the debt

Hi HB.......Thanks for this info.......Now I understand........Cheers mate !

gordonjblair · July 3, 2008

HalewoodBlue said:
Were only paying 78m for kirkby, and at a conservative estimate 6mths ago redeveloping GP was 150m so like kirkby that will have risen as well (My source for this figure? Ask Fat Clueless Dave Kelly of keioc), while your at it ask him if bernie ecclestone has called him yet on his everton ringtone mobile
Am sure with this figure you can do the math as to why it would take longer to clear the debt

Strictly speaking, we're not paying 78M for Kirkby, we're paying £130M.

Hold on, don't shoot, and I'll explain.

The enabling factor of the finances (the £52M carrot) is purely a capitalised security against rental income. EFC still hands over a cheque for £130M, but (hopefully) some kind w.. banker will hand over £52M against the rental income. If the rental fails or falls short, EFC are liable, if the size and scope of the retail element is judged insufficient to merit the full £52M (financial institutions having discovered that being risk averse in straitened times isn't such a bad thing) we get a smaller cheque, and are liable for the shortfall.

All this before we take into account the (very real) prospect of cost overrun, with constantly rising steel prices, building on a landfill, etc etc.

The financial arguements for Kirkby are marginal; if, for example, GP were to be redeveloped in a phased manner it would certainly cost at least as much as Kirkby (£130 - £150M), and any enabling securitisation would be strictly limited (perhaps a hotel overlooking the park, and .. um, that's it). However, and it's a big however, the draconian limitations and restrictions that we have seen placed on the Knowsley Met Stadium (or whatever it ends up being called) will not be enforceable on GP - if only because they'd have to enforce the same restrictions on those scamps over the park.

So while the initial outlay would be greater (we'd probably have to cough an extra £30-35M), the capacity to increase revenue would be far less restricted at GP, and the phased approach would allow a far less risky (and therefore, less expensive) funding model to be adopted.

The reason, and I believe this is the key reason, we are jumping into the Knowsley Met Stadium, is that someone else is doing all of the hard work. Bill puts on shows, he's not a property developer.
I'm sure he was entirely genuine when he was fronting GFE around the time that Cronton et al raised their heads, but when faced with the reality of having to lead the club through something as complex as a phased redevelopment of the entire Stadium, I think he was quite relieved when Tesco Tel offered to do all the spade work for him, plus a bit of a financial sweetener, in exchange for helping them through their planning process... merely by being there.

There are some valid arguements to both sides of this debate, I don't believe squabbles with the council (cutting of our noses to spite our face), having our legs pulled by the Devon Badge wearers society, or merely saying 'Kirkby smells' are included in that pantheon of valid issues.

Rook · July 3, 2008

There is something the anti-Kirkby doesn't realize. The only way that a stadium is being built in the city limits is if we get a new owner. However why would that owner choose to stay in the city limits if he/she buys the team given that they have the choise of paying 300-400M to stay in the city vs. 100-150M to go to Kirkby? Would it be because the owner is a true blue? HAHA! The "new" owner would prob be some Russian oil oligarch, an American or somebody from the Middle east looking to make a profit.

The Russian would prob use the team as security to have assets outside of putin's govt. And wouldn't give a damn about the team or where the team is playing. The American would defo choose Kirkby and not see what the fuss is about because many American stadiums are built in the suburbs (the American will also whine that they city isn't fully funding the entire cost of the ground as well). And the Dubai billionaire would just build the cheapest stadium we could get so he could sell the team for a profit.

We should face facts. Unless some benevolent billionarie comes along Kirkby is the only viable option, unless we buy Anfield. The [Poor language removed] has twice the revenue that we do and even they are having trouble coming up with funds to build a new stadium in the city limits.

gordonjblair · July 3, 2008

Rook said:
There is something the anti-Kirkby doesn't realize. The only way that a stadium is being built in the city limits is if we get a new owner. However why would that owner choose to stay in the city limits if he/she buys the team given that they have the choise of paying 300-400M to stay in the city vs. 100-150M to go to Kirkby?

or a slightly more realistic c. £150M to turn GP into a suitable alternative.

The Russian would prob use the team as security to have assets outside of putin's govt. And wouldn't give a damn about the team or where the team is playing.

..on the bright side, he could threaten the Construction firm with Polonium enemas to make sure they keep the cost down.... who are you, Tom Clancy?

The American would defo choose Kirkby and not see what the fuss is about because many American stadiums are built in the suburbs (the American will also whine that they city isn't fully funding the entire cost of the ground as well).

They've moved away from the out of 'town'/CBD model over in the States already, they'd certainly see they value of staying as close as possible to the economic centre of Merseyside.

And the Dubai billionaire would just build the cheapest stadium we could get so he could sell the team for a profit.

yeah, those Arabs are famed for doing everything on the cheap, gang of skinflints :unsure:

We should face facts. Unless some benevolent billionarie comes along Kirkby is the only viable option, unless we buy Anfield. The [Poor language removed] has twice the revenue that we do and even they are having trouble coming up with funds to build a new stadium in the city limits.

They're lumping debt on top of debt, and doing it all in one big lump. Far easier to phase a redevelopment.. aw heck, you know where I'm heading.

Let's face it, all of the above is academic, it's highly unlikely that we're going to receive a windfall in the post, so it doesn't really matter what Vlad, Chuck, or Sheik N'Vakh think. Just what's best for our Club (y)

Meanwhile, I think everyone else wants the last 2 minutes of their lives back, so I'm off b)

DENNIS STEVENS · July 3, 2008

Rook said:
There is something the anti-Kirkby doesn't realize. The only way that a stadium is being built in the city limits is if we get a new owner. However why would that owner choose to stay in the city limits if he/she buys the team given that they have the choise of paying 300-400M to stay in the city vs. 100-150M to go to Kirkby? Would it be because the owner is a true blue? HAHA! The "new" owner would prob be some Russian oil oligarch, an American or somebody from the Middle east looking to make a profit.

The Russian would prob use the team as security to have assets outside of putin's govt. And wouldn't give a damn about the team or where the team is playing. The American would defo choose Kirkby and not see what the fuss is about because many American stadiums are built in the suburbs (the American will also whine that they city isn't fully funding the entire cost of the ground as well). And the Dubai billionaire would just build the cheapest stadium we could get so he could sell the team for a profit.

We should face facts. Unless some benevolent billionarie comes along Kirkby is the only viable option, unless we buy Anfield. The [Poor language removed] has twice the revenue that we do and even they are having trouble coming up with funds to build a new stadium in the city limits.

i think most anti-kirkbyites do realise that a new owner may well be the only way forward after kirkby falls through. the rest of your post is pure conjecture as regards what you think may happen, based on what you think potential club owners that you've made up may happen to think in the future (they'll think whatever you want, you've just invented them).
oh, yes, re "facing facts" what makes you think kirkby is viable??

Rook · July 4, 2008

DENNIS STEVENS said:
i think most anti-kirkbyites do realise that a new owner may well be the only way forward after kirkby falls through. the rest of your post is pure conjecture as regards what you think may happen, based on what you think potential club owners that you've made up may happen to think in the future (they'll think whatever you want, you've just invented them).
oh, yes, re "facing facts" what makes you think kirkby is viable??

Its affordable and only a few miles outside the city. I also just can't see an owner paying the extra 200M for a stadium w/in city limits when the team isn't probably worth 200M.

It also appears that the city doesn't even want us there. Kings Dock was turned down because of NIMBYs. The council bends over backward to give the [Poor language removed] land and in an insulting gesture finds a little sliver inside a cloverleaf and says there you go.

I mentioned Anfield which could be had for peanuts and is a loud and intimiating place to play. I know most KEIOC's would rather move to Kirkby than Anfield but I kind of like the idea of lighting a big bonfire of everything red in the stadium and renaming it. Plus for once the you'd see some actual football played there not that [Poor language removed] on a stick the [Poor language removed] plays. Also it would be nice to hear the [Poor language removed] whine and wish they never left Anfield when their ticket prices are doubled in their new soulless stadium.

gordonjblair · July 4, 2008

Rook said:
Its affordable and only a few miles outside the city. I also just can't see an owner paying the extra 200M for a stadium w/in city limits when the team isn't probably worth 200M.

again.. certainly not an extra 200m, you'd feel pretty ripped off if it was a TOTAL £200m to transform GP

It also appears that the city doesn't even want us there. Kings Dock was turned down because of NIMBYs.

Kings Dock wasn't turned down at all.. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a big [Poor language removed] off arena there now.
We didn't go to King's Dock because BK took exception to handing over more of the club to the Gregg's in exchange for the £30M it would have taken to get us there. (the actual contribution, based on out-turn cost would have probably been nearer £60M, but still a bit of a snip

)

I mentioned Anfield ....

and I'd be grateful if you never did it again

seriously,it's an ill-conceived abortion of a Stadium, which would require just as much work as GP to remain competitive over the next 50 years... and I reckon it'd take ages to get rid of the smell.

coyney · July 4, 2008

gordonjblair said:
again.. certainly not an extra 200m, you'd feel pretty ripped off if it was a TOTAL £200m to transform GP

Kings Dock wasn't turned down at all.. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a big [Poor language removed] off arena there now.
We didn't go to King's Dock because BK took exception to handing over more of the club to the Gregg's in exchange for the £30M it would have taken to get us there. (the actual contribution, based on out-turn cost would have probably been nearer £60M, but still a bit of a snip )

and I'd be grateful if you never did it again seriously,it's an ill-conceived abortion of a Stadium, which would require just as much work as GP to remain competitive over the next 50 years... and I reckon it'd take ages to get rid of the smell.