KEIOC Meeting

[atrottel]

Report in the Post about the presentation to minority shareholders (presumably that means fans with a share?):

KEIOC chairman Dave Kelly (surely not? Ed.) said: “We’re not saying this is the template. “I don’t care what the vision is, as long as there is one.
“At the moment we have nothing.”
He called on shareholders at last night’s meeting to contact members of the board and make their voices heard.
“Maybe they’re not listening. I say make them.”

However:

Ninety minutes into the meeting, a third of attendees had left and the rest disagreed on the wording of the plea to the board for a new feasibility study.

Other highlights:

They conceded it would still cost a lot, perhaps as much as Arsenal’s £700m Emirates Stadium, but be able to be built over a long time span as money became available, and without causing disruption to games.

Anyone who was there want to give their view of how it went, rather than this lickspittle Pravda running dog who is obviously misrepresenting the legitimate demands of the lumpenproletariat. Hang him from a lamppost, brothers.

 

[StDomingosGringo]

I had to look up lumpenproletariat but now I'm going to use it everyday.

 

[Whitebootman]

I had to look up lumpenproletariat but now I'm going to use it everyday.

I had to look it up as well, I thought they were starting on Joe Yobo for a minute.


Count me in then, some of my best friends are among the old lumpenproletariat.

 

[StDomingosGringo]

Everyones favouite lumpenproletariats?

(Sorry atrottel, it's a cracking post but that one word bestrides it like a collossus!)

 

[davek]

It was the shareholder's associations meeting and that would account for some people not sticking around to vote on a proposal from a group they might not support. Their choice, I suppose. I heard it went well. I'd imagne the KEIOC site will file a full report on the meeting asap.

 

[kenada_blue]

KEIOC still running?

I guess the old "Well, its a [Poor language removed] unfeasable plan like....but its a plan" works wonders. Where's the A-team when you need em?

 

[Tom Hughes]

I also attended this meeting......As ever, slightly misreported.

No-one said it would cost £700m or anything even close to that figure to bring GP upto the required capacity. There is a broad range of costings which is dependent on multiple criteria including the level of ambition and quality which should be explored by a full and all-encompassing feasibility study of the site (You know, that thing the club said it had already done before the vote). Also, the presentation massively over-ran since there was other shareholder association business that had to be resolved first, meaning that the meeting wasn't over till almost 11pm (it started at 7:30pm). Very few if any left before the end of the actual stadium/football quarter presentation..... and only Colin Laphlan and his mother questioned the wording of the proposed statement which is being put before the shareholder association committee for submission. The presentation was very much about raising the awareness to the possibilities of a football quarter and a combined effort.... it was generally well received by both the shareholders association committee, members and guests assembled and demonstrated genuine options that need to be considered.

 

[Ara]

How do KEIOC plan Everton to make up the shortfall in revenue while the stands being built/refunished.

as a loss of around 10k seats a season is a big loss in revenue.

I understand that redevolping goodison might be the only way, but while we are redevolping the team could go backwords, due to the loss
of revenue

 

[Tom Hughes]

new capacity can be built behind existing stands, obviously with particular ease at the Park end.... but also on the Bullens side for only a moderate footprint enlargement.

KEIOC demonstrated with scale plan views various different approaches and phases, illustrating how capacity need not fall below current levels, and certainly for no extended periods. They have also liaised with city planners regarding the viability of such, and there is agreement about the potential of this method of increasing capacity and redevelopment generally.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

have they put all these plans /visions etc online for the majority to view ?

 

[Ara]

new capacity can be built behind existing stands, obviously with particular ease at the Park end.... but also on the Bullens side for only a moderate footprint enlargement.

KEIOC demonstrated with scale plan views various different approaches and phases, illustrating how capacity need not fall below current levels, and certainly for no extended periods. They have also liaised with city planners regarding the viability of such, and there is agreement about the potential of this method of increasing capacity and redevelopment generally.

other then the park end, the other 3 sections all need redoing from scratch, due to those lovely white poles that always seem to be in the way of the major talkin points

 

[Tom Hughes]

other then the park end, the other 3 sections all need redoing from scratch, due to those lovely white poles that always seem to be in the way of the major talkin points

Maybe in the long term, but great improvements and substantial reduction of obstructions is readily achieved by simple re-roofing. Then it depends on your stance really..... the traditionalist can see a lot of value in these old stands.... warts and all. It is for instance very possible to get to 50k+ unobstructed views by simply placing a wrap around tier around the Bullens and Parkend. The lower Bullens could be turned into a proper unified terrace stand with the paddock and worst rearmost rows removed. The Park end can literally be the biggest end stand in the country, there is that much room. The mainstand can have its 2 front posts removed and boxes slung beneath the top balcony to eradicate the worst obstructions on that side, plus the St End Roof can be supported by a truss with roof gallery boxes. Obstructed views would fall from thousands to a few hundred, all in a capacity greater than Kirkby can ever be (if it was at all viable in the first place). There are a multitude of other approaches replacing 1, 2 or more stands.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

so is it online for us to see ?

 

[Tom Hughes]

I've no idea.... I haven't looked.

 

[BlackToffee]

Maybe in the long term, but great improvements and substantial reduction of obstructions is readily achieved by simple re-roofing. Then it depends on your stance really..... the traditionalist can see a lot of value in these old stands.... warts and all. It is for instance very possible to get to 50k+ unobstructed views by simply placing a wrap around tier around the Bullens and Parkend. The lower Bullens could be turned into a proper unified terrace stand with the paddock and worst rearmost rows removed. The Park end can literally be the biggest end stand in the country, there is that much room. The mainstand can have its 2 front posts removed and boxes slung beneath the top balcony to eradicate the worst obstructions on that side, plus the St End Roof can be supported by a truss with roof gallery boxes. Obstructed views would fall from thousands to a few hundred, all in a capacity greater than Kirkby can ever be (if it was at all viable in the first place). There are a multitude of other approaches replacing 1, 2 or more stands.

..and how does the plan address the issue that the dressing rooms are not fit for purpose. We all seem to think about the supporters, but the issue is the ground. Its a great ground. Not going to knock it further than the obstructed views, but I am of the school that iit nees a rebuild not a new lick of paint.

Kudos though to Keioc for suggesting something, even if at this stage its nigh impossible without proper finances, and more importanltly the Council's support, which maybe more important than Everton's at the get go.