from the egm

[HalewoodBlue]

230 million to rebuild Goodison? Unfortunately most people will take this for granted and won't even ask how they got that figure. Or how Kirbky can cost 130 million less, especially considering we already own the land in Walton (the subsidy for Kirkby comes in the form of "free" land).

Because the club said it would cost 130 million more to rebuild Goodison Park, this is now gospel

Of course you can prove it wrong cant you mate?

 

[Chris]

Did Bill do his Elephant impression using his trouser pockets last night? Ahh he's a wily one that lad.

I wonder if Moyes will sign his contract knowing the situation is about to change at the top (or is slated to change at least). It's uncertainty for him isn't it. I'd hold fire on signing till I knew I wasn't going to be working for a complete tool.

 

[Makis]

Of course you can prove it wrong cant you mate?

Just common sense. Kirkby apparently costs 79 million or thereabouts. Redeveloping Goodison Park 230 million. Will demolition and buying a few houses really cost 150 million?

And of course the Kirkby site needs extensive ground work as it's an old landfill, and this is expensive.

 

[HalewoodBlue]

Just common sense. Kirkby apparently costs 79 million or thereabouts. Redeveloping Goodison Park 230 million. Will demolition and buying a few houses really cost 150 million?

And of course the Kirkby site needs extensive ground work as it's an old landfill, and this is expensive.

No our contribution is 79mill, try reading next time mate

 

[Makis]

No our contribution is 79mill, try reading next time mate

And we get 50 million worth of land for free, that's the ticket for this thing. There will be no massive subsidising for construction costs since construction industry runs at profit levels of 1-2 percent and everything else is covered by loans. If you had paid any attention during the last year, you'd know this is as much as the club itself has said (the loan bid/enabling funding).

If you know how much Kirkby will cost and how it is funded, I'm all ears. I'm just going along with what the club has told so far (I'm very sceptical about the costs etc. but let's assume they are correct).

Besides, the club said that fully rebuilding Bullen's Road would cost 52 million. Times four is 208 million, but Park End and Gwlady's Street surely won't cost that much, so how did they end up with a total sum of 230 million? Especially as it's Bullen's Road that will most likely be the most expensive to build (at least it requires the purchase of houses etc if done properly). To me it sounds like they just added quite a hefty sum on top of their max estimation. A very usual tactic but if you are forced to show how you ended up with the estimation every will realise what you are up to. It works something like this:

Let's divide the job into X parts.
Then select the most expensive part to do and estimate the value of that.
Multiply that valuation with X.
Add 20-30% (or more) to that.

And hey presto, you have a ridiculously high estimation.

 

[HalewoodBlue]

And we get 50 million worth of land for free, that's the ticket for this thing. There will be no massive subsidising for construction costs since construction industry runs at profit levels of 1-2 percent and everything else is covered by loans. If you had paid any attention during the last year, you'd know this is as much as the club itself has said (the loan bid/enabling funding).

If you know how much Kirkby will cost and how it is funded, I'm all ears. I'm just going along with what the club has told so far (I'm very sceptical about the costs etc. but let's assume they are correct).

Besides, the club said that fully rebuilding Bullen's Road would cost 52 million. Times four is 208 million, but Park End and Gwlady's Street surely won't cost that much, so how did they end up with a total sum of 230 million? Especially as it's Bullen's Road that will most likely be the most expensive to build (at least it requires the purchase of houses etc if done properly). To me it sounds like they just added quite a hefty sum on top of their max estimation. A very usual tactic but if you are forced to show how you ended up with the estimation every will realise what you are up to. It works something like this:

Let's divide the job into X parts.
Then select the most expensive part to do and estimate the value of that.
Multiply that valuation with X.
Add 20-30% (or more) to that.

And hey presto, you have a ridiculously high estimation.

Not really the main stand will be alot more expensive to rebuild than Bullens, loss of revenue, purchase order on houses and the school. It all adds up

 

[Makis]

Not really the main stand will be alot more expensive to rebuild than Bullens, loss of revenue, purchase order on houses and the school. It all adds up

Houses and the school are part of Bullen's Road rebuild. Why would Main Stand be more expensive? And loss of revenue, not really. It depends on how the build is staged.

It's just nonsense. Redeveloping Goodison can't possible be almost three times as expensive as building in Kirkby - unless of course the Kirkby job is done as cheaply as possible and Goodison much more expensively (which I think is how the costs are calculated).

 

[Makis]

Let's just think about this for a while.

The club says rebuilding Bullen's Road would cost 52 million. This would include buying the houses and school.

Even if Main Stand would cost 80 million to rebuild, there would still be about 50 million for both Gwlady's Street and Park End to rebuild at club's estimates - but how can those stands cost as much as Bullen's? Much smaller, no need to buy property.

 

[keverton]

Kenwright is a lying [Poor language removed].

each post you make i find more confusing, will you ever make a positive thread or post

 

[Goat]

Let's just think about this for a while.

The club says rebuilding Bullen's Road would cost 52 million. This would include buying the houses and school.

Even if Main Stand would cost 80 million to rebuild, there would still be about 50 million for both Gwlady's Street and Park End to rebuild at club's estimates - but how can those stands cost as much as Bullen's? Much smaller, no need to buy property.

Possbily because the roof in the Gwlady would need to be rebuild to get rid of the posts and also there is property behind, also it would need to be expanded to remove the obscured views from the sides.

Why does every1 keep forgetting about the listed building church that we cant remove?

 

[Makis]

Possbily because the roof in the Gwlady would need to be rebuild to get rid of the posts and also there is property behind, also it would need to be expanded to remove the obscured views from the sides.

Why does every1 keep forgetting about the listed building church that we cant remove?

I don't understand your point. That 52 million would be used to completely rebuild BR from scratch. It can't be just refurbished. 52 million is a hell of a lot of money - you could have built a stadium with that sum 10 years ago (well, a slight overstatement, but not by much).

The church takes up on corner, hardly a massive problem.

 

[davek]

230 million to rebuild Goodison? Unfortunately most people will take this for granted and won't even ask how they got that figure. Or how Kirbky can cost 130 million less, especially considering we already own the land in Walton (the subsidy for Kirkby comes in the form of "free" land).

Because the club said it would cost 130 million more to rebuild Goodison Park, this is now gospel

They wont ask because they'll know it was plucked out of the air and wasn't able to be challenged because of the commercial sensitivity 'explanation'.

Given the importance of proving Goodison isn't a viable site, shouldn't the CEO of the club have broken those figures down...otherwise doubts remain and the counter argument to Kirkby continues to gain ground.

His words have just fuelled the debate, not settled anything.

 

[Goat]

Emirates Stadium project cost £430 million, that was building from scratch, which is mostly what you would have to do with GP, you think just cos they have a base that it would be cheaper? Every stand would have to be rebuilt, from top to bottom, to mostly fall in line with updated building regulations.

St James Park Throughout its history, the desire for expansion has caused conflict with local residents and the local council. This has led to proposals to move at least twice in the late 1960s and a controversial 1995 proposed move to nearby Leazes Park. Reluctance to move has led to the distinctive lop-sided appearance of the present day stadium, due to asymmetrical stands. The Stadium was re-built in the 1993 expansion, for which i find no costings.
It became clear that the relocation plan would not gain planning permission without a potentially long running public enquiry. To quickly satisfy demand, the club decided to expand the current St James' Park instead in July 2000 at a cost of £42 million.
It was announced on 2 April 2007 that the club intend to submit plans for a new £300million development of the stadium and surrounding areas, to include a major conference centre, hotels and luxury apartments.

So it would have cost Newcastle 300m to expand the stadium they already, that they redeveloped in 2000 for 42m. So thats 342m, take away the major conference centre, hotels and luxury apartments. And do you not think that the figure of 230m that the club said becomes real?

 

[davek]

Emirates Stadium project cost £430 million, that was building from scratch, which is mostly what you would have to do with GP, you think just cos they have a base that it would be cheaper? Every stand would have to be rebuilt, from top to bottom, to mostly fall in line with updated building regulations.

St James Park Throughout its history, the desire for expansion has caused conflict with local residents and the local council. This has led to proposals to move at least twice in the late 1960s and a controversial 1995 proposed move to nearby Leazes Park. Reluctance to move has led to the distinctive lop-sided appearance of the present day stadium, due to asymmetrical stands. The Stadium was re-built in the 1993 expansion, for which i find no costings.
It became clear that the relocation plan would not gain planning permission without a potentially long running public enquiry. To quickly satisfy demand, the club decided to expand the current St James' Park instead in July 2000 at a cost of £42 million.
It was announced on 2 April 2007 that the club intend to submit plans for a new £300million development of the stadium and surrounding areas, to include a major conference centre, hotels and luxury apartments.

So it would have cost Newcastle 300m to expand the stadium they already, that they redeveloped in 2000 for 42m. So thats 342m, take away the major conference centre, hotels and luxury apartments. And do you not think that the figure of 230m that the club said becomes real?

I dont know how real his figure is - that's why he should have broken it down. Comparison with other grounds tell us nothing because each build has its own idiosyncrasies: what can be utilised/what has to be scrapped and built anew. How can Elstone possibly be taken seriously in his 'effort' to explain the financial case of Kirkby if he cant furnish us with these crucial facts? It's the same vague fog of disinformation that has dogged this project from day one.

 

[kenada_blue]

Houses and the school are part of Bullen's Road rebuild. Why would Main Stand be more expensive? And loss of revenue, not really. It depends on how the build is staged.

It's just nonsense. Redeveloping Goodison can't possible be almost three times as expensive as building in Kirkby - unless of course the Kirkby job is done as cheaply as possible and Goodison much more expensively (which I think is how the costs are calculated).

Why are most teams moving grounds instead of rebuilding - Arsenal and the [Poor language removed] for eg?

Dont they move because its financially better than rebuilding? Cheaper?

If Elstone did make up a figure why 230million? Why not £300million while he's at it?